And despite the complaint about Trump losing the popular vote you have to admit that it was really, really close.
Yes, but because she could not win the votes of a group of testaments to the devastating mental effects of inbreeding, she lost.
Which is why Clinton winning the popular vote is only a demonstration of how the Electoral College is massively flawed. I'm curious what the numbers would have looked like if the votes were distributed proportionately to the popular vote as opposed to the all or nothing system that I think I'm safe in saying has proven itself to advantage the Republicans after two Republican presidential victories in my lifetime that lost the popular vote.
It was a military coup. The FBI and the NYT told everyone to vote for a Nazi, so they did.Fred, I've got to tell you. Sometimes, you make some very good points. Other times, you sound like a hysterical tin foil hat enthusiast. Guess which category your latest post falls into?
Comey's timing was a bit on the sus side.It was a military coup. The FBI and the NYT told everyone to vote for a Nazi, so they did.Fred, I've got to tell you. Sometimes, you make some very good points. Other times, you sound like a hysterical tin foil hat enthusiast. Guess which category your latest post falls into?
Comey's timing was a bit on the sus side.It was a military coup. The FBI and the NYT told everyone to vote for a Nazi, so they did.Fred, I've got to tell you. Sometimes, you make some very good points. Other times, you sound like a hysterical tin foil hat enthusiast. Guess which category your latest post falls into?
She lacked passion is what she did and had the arrogance to assume the cat was in the bag. It was never in the bag.
She lacked passion is what she did and had the arrogance to assume the cat was in the bag. It was never in the bag.
Isn't that almost exactly how she lost the primaries 8 years ago?
DNC tilted the Democratic party's primary for Clinton's favor but looking at her victory margin it was far from the decisive factor. The main factors were that the southern black voters usually (and for very understandable reasons) go for what they see as the safe choice and Sanders started his campaign way too late. There was also the fact that she didn't have any real challengers besides Sanders and even he didn't realize at first that he had a chance to actually pose a challenge for her.
While it's interesting and kind of cathartic to speculate what would have happened if Sanders had jumped in earlier or if a third serious challenger like Biden had been in the race that was not how things went. In the end, the DNC's schemes only hurt both them and Clinton and the bitter irony is that she wouldn't have needed them to win the candidacy.
I don't think it's anywhere near that simple, nor do I think it's a coup but racism certainly played a part. You know what else played a part though? People not voting! Voter turnout was lower than the last two federal US elections. So yeah race-baiting, Comey's fuckery and economic malaise all played a part but the "eh, both sides suck" crowd also owns a big share of reponsibility for this mess.Comey's timing was a bit on the sus side.It was a military coup. The FBI and the NYT told everyone to vote for a Nazi, so they did.Fred, I've got to tell you. Sometimes, you make some very good points. Other times, you sound like a hysterical tin foil hat enthusiast. Guess which category your latest post falls into?
Still, Fred (and Niam as well) isn't doing anyone any favors by talking about "coups" and "Nazis" and "incompetent degenerates". I wonder how many people realize that many, many people voted for Trump because he offered a change, and Hillary did not? That many people voted for Trump because Hillary had no platform aside from "don't vote for that other guy"? That a lot of people were concerned with the absolute multitude of baggage she was trailing around behind her? Or that she actively attempted to shut down all other fronts and information in her campaign?
...Nah, it must just be 60 million racists and sexists, right?
It's less of a single smoking gun and more.like the aftermath of a John Woo Mexican standoff gone wrong!
Third parties got, depending on the state, two to five times more votes than the last two elections, so I do think the protest voters were a factor because apparently worthless principle is more important than keeping a fascist out of the White House to the Bernie or Bust crowd.
The problem I'm seeing on the Democratic side is that everyone is trying to find a smoking gun reason why Trump won. This is reductionist and little more than finger pointing. Comey, the fucking e-mails, the "both sides suck" crowd, Clinton being unlikable to a hell of a lot of people (still don't get why, but this is the reality), the media treating Trump with kid gloves, sexism and racism are all factors, but none of them are the smoking gun people want to point to.
I think before we start pointing fingers, we should try to understand why Trump got the support he did. From what I can see, two of the big factors were anti-establishment sentiment and just how divided America has become.That and he promised to bring some measure of prosperity back to the lower classes, especially the rural poor. Now that US manufacturing is uncompetitive, those who live in the country and aren't farmers have basically no opportunities. There's fast food, and that's about it. Between that and the high cost of living in cities making it nearly impossible for those people to simple move there, they're pretty much trapped in poverty with no way out. It used to be the case that small towns would have a factory or a mine or some other large industry that would be its primary source of wealth. Nowadays those have been mostly outsourced, and the government has done nothing to help the those who've lost their livelihoods as a result. Now, Trump comes along and is the first politician, well, ever, to not only not ignore them while throwing what's left of their livelihoods under the bus with trade deals like NAFTA, but actually promise to help them by bringing back America's manufacturing industry, it's no wonder he was so well received. "Make America Great Again" didn't mean "get rid of all the Mexicans and put the darkies back in their place", unlike what some seemed to think, it means "bring back wealth and opportunities for everyone, not just the urban elite", which ironically is what the left is supposed to be about.
Honestly, it's shit like this that almost makes me consider going alt right, if only to not be associated with a bunch of melodramatic manchildren.
Art acts as if econmic malaise and racism is an either/or proposition. It isn't, in fact the flames of racism and other bigotry are fanned by economic problems.I didn't say no Trump supporters were racist. My point is that racism was not the be all and end all of Trump's campaign, and the left assuming that it was is almost certainly why he won.
Good point.Honestly, it's shit like this that almost makes me consider going alt right, if only to not be associated with a bunch of melodramatic manchildren....yes, if there's one thing no one's ever accused the alt right of, it's being a bunch of melodramatic manchildren
Can we be clear who we are talking about when we say "the left"? Because I can certainly see the Democratic hierarchy doing that but I thought we agreed in another thread they weren't really the "left". Identity politics supremos with weaponized offence would probably also be on board but surely if "left wing" has any coherent meaning it should cover an economic dimension.Art acts as if econmic malaise and racism is an either/or proposition. It isn't, in fact the flames of racism and other bigotry are fanned by economic problems.I didn't say no Trump supporters were racist. My point is that racism was not the be all and end all of Trump's campaign, and the left assuming that it was is almost certainly why he won.Good point.Honestly, it's shit like this that almost makes me consider going alt right, if only to not be associated with a bunch of melodramatic manchildren....yes, if there's one thing no one's ever accused the alt right of, it's being a bunch of melodramatic manchildren
Can we be clear who we are talking about when we say "the left"? Because I can certainly see the Democratic hierarchy doing that but I thought we agreed in another thread they weren't really the "left". Identity politics supremos with weaponized offence would probably also be on board but surely if "left wing" has any coherent meaning it should cover an economic dimension.I meant it as a catch-all term for pretty much everyone opposed to Trump. Obviously it's rather vague and nebulous, but that's generally what happens when you try to put basically every political ideology in the world into one of two categories. I guess we can call them something else, if you'd prefer.
A Democrat doner who thinks he's left wing because he has a gay butler, eco friendly light bulbs in his mansion and a Hispanic maid is no more left wing than Australia's own Malcolm Turnbull who recently rebuked Trump by singing the praises of "fair trade", which is to say, not in the slightest.
As to my comments about them being incompetent degenerates, I don't feel the need to sugarcoat what I feel about these "people". They say they want change, and I say they don't deserve it. They dug this hole with repeatedly voting for people who do nothing but make sure they're miserable. There is no magic Trump can do to reopen those mines and factories. I say let them climb out of it themselves instead of burdening reasonable society.
I saw all I needed to of Trump Supporters - their "Trump that bitch" shirts and their flags and their horrific hairdos and below average intelligence and inability to tell when a joke is on them.
I would rather chat up a chimpanzee than ever have dialogue with the Trump Supporter.
As far as I am concerned, they've done well to earn me ignoring their problems - in fact, if I had the choice to, I'd make their problems worse.
I see a large part of the Republican voters as victims. They live in a bubble where they are convinced that their best bet to improve their lives are the same people who keep screwing them over. Instead of fighting the cultural attitudes that feed ignorant racism in these people the Republican party and their other leaders work to maintain them. Having Democrats and minorities as scapegoats for their problems is an easier way to keep them in line than actually trying to help them.
The kind of racism that is bred by ignorance is a global phenomenon and a part of the human condition, it should be fought by fighting ignorance. This requires both an understanding attitude at their problems and attacking their leadership and the Republican party as an institution. This is not easy to do since the Republicans will do their best to turn any attack on those who deserve it to an attack on the whole group. A good example is how Hillary's "basket of deplorables" comment was taken out of context. The mistake she made was apologizing for it - and implicitly admitting fault - instead of doubling down with a wording that isn't so easy to take out of context and make into a sound bite.
Then there is the other kind. The KKK types, neo-nazis and the worst of the alt-right crowd who are so hateful that they are just human scum. Even they aren't all lost cases but as a group the only useful strategical option is to fight them as hard as you can.
...I know there are only 60 days left to make our case -- and don't get complacent, don't see the latest outrageous, offensive, inappropriate comment and think, well, he's done this time. We are living in a volatile political environment. You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic -- you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people -- now 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks -- they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America."
But the other basket -- and I know this because I see friends from all over America here -- I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas -- as well as, you know, New York and California -- but that other basket of people are people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they're just desperate for change. It doesn't really even matter where it comes from. They don't buy everything he says, but he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won't wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they're in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well.
Given that about 9% of the US population voted at all (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/08/01/us/elections/nine-percent-of-america-selected-trump-and-clinton.html?_r=0) one half of the Trump vote doesn't put Clinton's guess at the size the alt right at such a huge number-but you don't have to be a huge number to be influential.
(also, the alt-right, neo-nazis, the KKK, maybe add up to a few tens of thousands of people. Their votes don't win elections. It was the good old regular right that mattered.)
I didn't say no Trump supporters were racist. My point is that racism was not the be all and end all of Trump's campaign, and the left assuming that it was is almost certainly why he won.
I think a good way to make sure Trump doesn't get a second term is to try and heal the political divides. He was able to win partly because he exploited them to his advantage.
Really, I think we could all stand to be a little more tolerant of opposing viewpoints.
I think a good way to make sure Trump doesn't get a second term is to try and heal the political divides. He was able to win partly because he exploited them to his advantage.I can tolerate people being pissed off because they are unemployed because their factory moved to Mexico just fine, it's perfectly justifiable. I don't see why anybody should tolerate people who then go on to blame Mexicans specifically. Shittiness is shittiness.
Really, I think we could all stand to be a little more tolerant of opposing viewpoints.
I'm much more worried about the crowd he is surrounding himself with. His own ambition is probably pumping as much money as possible to his companies and fattening his investment portfolio while basking in the limelight as the president. The real damage is going to be done by his cabinet and advisors and of course the Republican Congress and Senate.I'm seeing a lot of worrying comparisons with Bush's relationship with his advisers. Ambitious ideologues who want to steer the country in their chosen direction and a president who can't be bothered with the technical details. That's what happened with Bush/Cheney and it led directly to Iraq and the implosion of that country and neighbouring ISIS.
(also, the alt-right, neo-nazis, the KKK, maybe add up to a few tens of thousands of people. Their votes don't win elections. It was the good old regular right that mattered.)
When their voice is raised above the rest and legitimized it becomes a powerful political weapon. Their rhetoric uses the ignorant racism to pull the right as a whole closer to them and shapes and directs the largely legitimate anger of the white poor and working class people. Attacks against the extremists can be twisted into an attack against all the right wing voters and make the liberal elite, the minorities and the left wing in general a common enemy that is an existential threat to their identity.
I think a good way to make sure Trump doesn't get a second term is to try and heal the political divides. He was able to win partly because he exploited them to his advantage.
Really, I think we could all stand to be a little more tolerant of opposing viewpoints.
I"m... not sure what you are going for. Can you give some examples of characteristically right-wing talking points that are treated by the political left, not just inadequately, but with undeserved intolerance? Preferably from those divides that Trump was able to "exploit to his advantage"?
The alt-right has never been big and that's never been the point of them. Alt right fester-holes like /pol/ are filled with imagery and attitudes designed specifically to chase away outsiders but one thing the alt-right learned from the campaign that must not be named (http://fqa.digibase.ca/index.php?topic=6886.0) is that you can appear larger than you actually are and have a real impact (at least in the short term) disproportionate to your actual size merely by strategic trolling.(also, the alt-right, neo-nazis, the KKK, maybe add up to a few tens of thousands of people. Their votes don't win elections. It was the good old regular right that mattered.)
When their voice is raised above the rest and legitimized it becomes a powerful political weapon. Their rhetoric uses the ignorant racism to pull the right as a whole closer to them and shapes and directs the largely legitimate anger of the white poor and working class people. Attacks against the extremists can be twisted into an attack against all the right wing voters and make the liberal elite, the minorities and the left wing in general a common enemy that is an existential threat to their identity.
I don't deny that the alt-right was significant (if nothing else, in drawing the focus of the left away from things that mattered more). I'm saying they are not a substantial part of Trump voters.
I've heard people say that these results are less a victory for Trump and more a defeat for the political establishment. What say you?I say that the Republican establishment is laughing its arse off. It is a body blow for the Democrat establishment, whether they'll learn any useful lessons from this? Only time will tell.
That's not quite what I was getting at, but I guess I can give you an example. I used to roll my eyes at right-wingers complaining about the "liberal media". But now I think they have a point. Just look at the dirty laundry Wikileaks aired.
Yeah funnily enough. I never hear anyone complain about the conservative media. They just have this stigma that the Jews control everything and that the Jews are liberal.
That's not quite what I was getting at, but I guess I can give you an example. I used to roll my eyes at right-wingers complaining about the "liberal media". But now I think they have a point. Just look at the dirty laundry Wikileaks aired.
I don't know. The DNC emails were less "skeletons in the closet" and more "dirty laundry". Disgusting, depressing, for sure, but there's nothing there that I would call surprising. If anything, the amount and extent of media collusion revealed by the leaks was actually less than I expected.
As for the "liberal mainstream media" phrase... well, its history put aside, the accusation in itself isn't exactly wrong. CNN, NBC, NYT & co do tend to favor views that are seen as "left-wing" in the context of American politics, and while it is true that "reality has a liberal bias" on science-related issues, it cannot explain everything. Coupled with an inherent slant towards the societal (not just political) establishment they are an integral part of, this typically translates into tacit support for the Dems.
What makes it eyeroll-worthy is that the loudest accusations of liberal bias tend to come from people who either trust, work for, or are propped by media outlets on the other side of the fence that have rather flimsier claims of basic trustfulness, let alone objectivity. It is almost never used as a warning to keep a critical and analytical mind, and almost always as an incentive to use the "right" sources of information.
No I'm saying anti semites complain about the liberal media. They tend to think the liberal media is some big Jewish conspiracy.
Interesting: http://qz.com/843972/donald-trump-is-not-even-in-the-white-house-and-reince-preibus-his-chief-of-staff-is-allegedly-already-lying-to-him/
This would explain how Pence came out of nowhere to replace Christie. If true then Trump really is nothing but a puppet for Manafort/Putin.
Welp, apparently conservatives are having shitfits (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38072846) because Trump won't lock up Hillary Clinton (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38072846). He's also "disavowed" the alt right-after they helped him get into office, they're having shitfits too (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/22/alt-right-supporters-donald-trump-backlash-disavow-reddit-4chan) and getting into slapfights with each other over it (http://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/2016/11/22/white-pride-goeth-before-a-fall-alt-rightists-turn-on-each-other-over-hail-trump-vid/).
Who would have thunk that The Drumpf would have been less than straightforward with his greatest fans.? ;D
I don't doubt he'll do all of those things, slightly sadder will be the promises he'll break to the rust belt.Welp, apparently conservatives are having shitfits (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38072846) because Trump won't lock up Hillary Clinton (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38072846). He's also "disavowed" the alt right-after they helped him get into office, they're having shitfits too (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/22/alt-right-supporters-donald-trump-backlash-disavow-reddit-4chan) and getting into slapfights with each other over it (http://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/2016/11/22/white-pride-goeth-before-a-fall-alt-rightists-turn-on-each-other-over-hail-trump-vid/).
Who would have thunk that The Drumpf would have been less than straightforward with his greatest fans.? ;D
Don't worry. He'll still dismantle the Affordable Care Act, repeal all of Obama's executive orders on things like overtime pay and climate regulations, and give massive tax cuts to the rich.
Welp, apparently conservatives are having shitfits (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38072846) because Trump won't lock up Hillary Clinton (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38072846). He's also "disavowed" the alt right-after they helped him get into office, they're having shitfits too (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/22/alt-right-supporters-donald-trump-backlash-disavow-reddit-4chan) and getting into slapfights with each other over it (http://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/2016/11/22/white-pride-goeth-before-a-fall-alt-rightists-turn-on-each-other-over-hail-trump-vid/).
Who would have thunk that The Drumpf would have been less than straightforward with his greatest fans.? ;D
Welp, apparently Bannon is still groovy in Trump's book (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/22/donald-trump-steve-bannon-alt-right-white-nationalist-disavow) because...I dunno, the peasants aren't ready for "Hail Victory's" in public just yet and Bannon acts just like all the rest of them except for the dressing and Seig Heiling like a National Front reject from Britain in the 1980s part.Welp, apparently conservatives are having shitfits (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38072846) because Trump won't lock up Hillary Clinton (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38072846). He's also "disavowed" the alt right-after they helped him get into office, they're having shitfits too (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/22/alt-right-supporters-donald-trump-backlash-disavow-reddit-4chan) and getting into slapfights with each other over it (http://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/2016/11/22/white-pride-goeth-before-a-fall-alt-rightists-turn-on-each-other-over-hail-trump-vid/).
Who would have thunk that The Drumpf would have been less than straightforward with his greatest fans.? ;D
How is he "disavowing" them when he keeps giving them cushy government jobs?
I bet you are glad that you didn't elect the candidate that couldn't keep national secrets properly stored.SPESHUL PROSECUTA...oh, it's our guy...
http://www.salon.com/2016/11/21/kris-kobach-accidentally-leaked-homeland-security-plans-during-a-photo-op/
...Oops.
I miss the good old days when Neo-Nazis looked like this and didn't have any political support...Pekka Siitoin and his KDP (National Democratic Party) of drunken village idiots... good times.(click to show/hide)
So, how much damage do you think Trump will be able to do? Considering he's at loggerheads with much of the GOP, I'm cautiously optimistic.
So, how much damage do you think Trump will be able to do? Considering he's at loggerheads with much of the GOP, I'm cautiously optimistic.
They'll all kiss the ring, as will a good chunk of the Democrats.
So, how much damage do you think Trump will be able to do? Considering he's at loggerheads with much of the GOP, I'm cautiously optimistic.
They'll all kiss the ring, as will a good chunk of the Democrats.
Assuming that happens, what can be done to counter it? Let's think proactively.
Well, we could try to invoke Article 1, Section 9 of the US Constitution. in particular, the emoulement clause:
"No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State."
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec9.html
How is putting a moratorium on calling Trump Supporters or Brexit supporters racist any different to insisting black people can't be racist or women can't be sexist? It's creating a protected class that we all have to treat with kid gloves lest we offend someone.
If a Trump supporter or a Brexit voter celebrates their victory by attacking minorities do we call them...something else?
Or is there an ironclad rule that we preface it with #notallXsupporters first?
How is putting a moratorium on calling Trump Supporters or Brexit supporters racist any different to insisting black people can't be racist or women can't be sexist? It's creating a protected class that we all have to treat with kid gloves lest we offend someone.Where did I say anything about treating them with kid gloves? It pisses me off that we're all expected to do that for religion. I'd never argue we should coddle right wingers in the same manner. In fact, and correct me if I'm wrong, but it was my understanding that "a dialogue" with one's political opponents means a discussion or debate of some kind. You know, which involves at certain points telling them where they're wrong and why they're wrong in as much detail as possible. This of course includes any issues on which you feel they're wrong, racism included.
If a Trump supporter or a Brexit voter celebrates their victory by attacking minorities do we call them...something else?
Or is there an ironclad rule that we preface it with #notallXsupporters first?
That's true for political parties, for sure but if some Trump supporter jumps into a leftie thread and barfs "suck it byatches, your spook in chief is gone and your byatch is bleeding from her whateva" are said lefties under any obligation to hold back on those hurtful accusations of bigotry?I'm tad surprised that I have to explain this, but okay. Obviously, meaningful discussion is a two way street. It does require the other party to be willing to argue in good faith, and therefore it excludes individuals like internet trolls. Unless you're arguing that every Trump supporter or indeed right winger in general is on the same level as an internet troll, I'm not too sure how this is relevant.
In any case Clinton went to great pains to talk about the Trump voters who weren't Deplorables but merely justifiably worried about their economic and social prospects. Fox News, Brietbart, Heat St et al filtered that into "SNOOTY McSNOOT CALLS Y'ALL DEPLORABLE!!!"Yeah, that's also an important (though somewhat separate) concern.
That said, noting that racism is a factor in politics or noting that a politician is using dog-whistle racist signalling to their constituents is not the same as saying said constituents are just a bunch of racists. Sometimes it's just a fair analysis of what"s going on.Exactly. In fact, my overall point is essentially that the former is far more useful and productive than the latter.
I mean it hasn't all been white roses for the 8chan crowd, when they ran around screaming "hail victory" in their stubble-cuts in front of eager camera-snapping journos even Trump had to say he disavowed them. Still, he's been better at keeping his promises to the racist chan freaks than the struggling rust-belters thus far.
Well, Trumps a heck of a lot better so far at keeping his promises to his just plain racist constituents than his struggling middle and working class voters.
The Alt-Right's own Bannon cosying up to the prez as chief strategist, Sessions-a guy who's federal judgeship was knocked back because of his less than friendly attitude towards civil rights (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/trumps-pick-for-attorney-general-foreshadows-a-civil-rights-rollback/508172/) is his attorney general pick, his pick for national security adviser Flynn is a conspiracy theorist who thinks fear of Muslims is rational (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/11/18/trumps-new-national-security-adviser-has-said-some-incendiary-things-on-the-internet/).
Tax relief for the middle class? Nope (http://www.alternet.org/labor/already-big-gap-between-trumps-promises-middle-class-and-his-policies). Getting coal miners their jobs back? Nope (https://thinkprogress.org/donald-trump-says-hell-bring-back-jobs-for-coal-miners-but-he-s-just-blowing-smoke-9c9f6e7921ad#.g0gjc7k8b) and Nope (http://grist.org/briefly/mitch-mcconnell-has-already-admitted-gop-promises-to-out-of-work-coal-miners-wont-come-true/). Massive new infrastructure, probably not. (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/22/trumps-tax-infrastructure-promises-face-pushback-from-gop-lawmakers.html)
I mean it hasn't all been white roses for the 8chan crowd, when they ran around screaming "hail victory" in their stubble-cuts in front of eager camera-snapping journos even Trump had to say he disavowed them. Still, he's been better at keeping his promises to the racist chan freaks than the struggling rust-belters thus far.
Jill Stien is working on the money to get a recount started. If this happens, the results of the election might change.
Ironbite-and we won't be in Darkest Timeline.
Well, she says that the intention is not to flip the election but make sure people can trust that the voting system is reliable.
Edit: If I've understood correctly the recount must be initiated by the Clinton campaign. Stein is just trying to collect the funds for the process - lawyers' fees and the recount costs.
Okay. The story I read about it said she is collecting the money and has been in contact with Podesta about the issue. Then it went on to discuss the deadlines for Clinton to file a complaint in each of the states instead of discussing a possibility of Stein filing it herself. That's just one story, though, so I put the qualification of uncertainty in my post.Well, she says that the intention is not to flip the election but make sure people can trust that the voting system is reliable.
Edit: If I've understood correctly the recount must be initiated by the Clinton campaign. Stein is just trying to collect the funds for the process - lawyers' fees and the recount costs.
I wouldn't think it would have to be. Stein was a candidate herself, and she claims to have evidence that the voting systems were manipulated. That should be enough--but then I'm not an expert on US election law, especially since every state does its own thing with different rules.
Okay. The story I read about it said she is collecting the money and has been in contact with Podesta about the issue. Then it went on to discuss the deadlines for Clinton to file a complaint in each of the states instead of discussing a possibility of Stein filing it herself. That's just one story, though, so I put the qualification of uncertainty in my post.Well, she says that the intention is not to flip the election but make sure people can trust that the voting system is reliable.
Edit: If I've understood correctly the recount must be initiated by the Clinton campaign. Stein is just trying to collect the funds for the process - lawyers' fees and the recount costs.
I wouldn't think it would have to be. Stein was a candidate herself, and she claims to have evidence that the voting systems were manipulated. That should be enough--but then I'm not an expert on US election law, especially since every state does its own thing with different rules.
Ms. Jones, the film colleague, said that in their years working together, [Steve] Bannon occasionally talked about the genetic superiority of some people and once mused about the desirability of limiting the vote to property owners.
“I said, ‘That would exclude a lot of African-Americans,’” Ms. Jones recalled. “He said, ‘Maybe that’s not such a bad thing.’ I said, ‘But what about Wendy?’” referring to Mr. Bannon’s executive assistant. “He said, ‘She’s different. She’s family.’”
One thing is certain though. If Trump doesn't become the next elected president there will be blood on the streets as his cultists grab their guns.What's actually certain is that the next president after Trump will have to deal with a system crafted by and for Republicans even if Trump crashes and burns in ignominy and shame.
Because to them it would be the final proof that Hillary is "stealing" the elections.
[Trump]'s draining the swamp and filling it with gold coins so he can swim in it like Scrooge McDuck.
Do you think he'll put a Trump Tower in Washington?
Do you think he'll put a Trump Tower in Washington?
Maybe he'll refuse to move into the White house and instead will rule from the Trump tower?
And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
It gets better. He legally can't lease the building if President.
Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!
So basically a full on depression is incoming, with how pro business Trump is. History always seems to repeat itself.
...But the person chosen to replace Sisneros has to vote for Trump anyway am I right? So this doesn't really change anything, it's just one more person protesting against Trump.
How strange. For all my loathing for him, I must say I admire the sheer gall of that move.
Considering his previous comments about China it should not have been a surprise that he continued making them angry. New cold war to justify more military spending?That resembles something done with forethought. Trump may have rat bastard cunning but this looks more like a screw up borne of the man's spectacular ignorance. First of many I'll wager.
Doesn't she have more of Putin's cash to spend?
Come on lady, go for Medvedev's money if you're that cash strapped!
Honestly, I'd make it a federal law that if the difference between the top 2 for any federal office (including electors for President) is less than 1% of the total votes cast, there's an automatic recount, overseen by judges, costs paid by the federal government, which cannot be interrupted, challenged, or stopped for any reason barring natural disasters, and mandate paper trails for all voting machines (or, better, that voting machines used for federal elections read voter-marked paper ballots, not just print off a paper receipt). (Up here the federal threshold is 0.1%, and, yes, I'd make that 1%, too.)
Honestly, I'd make it a federal law that if the difference between the top 2 for any federal office (including electors for President) is less than 1% of the total votes cast, there's an automatic recount, overseen by judges, costs paid by the federal government, which cannot be interrupted, challenged, or stopped for any reason barring natural disasters, and mandate paper trails for all voting machines (or, better, that voting machines used for federal elections read voter-marked paper ballots, not just print off a paper receipt). (Up here the federal threshold is 0.1%, and, yes, I'd make that 1%, too.)
Your proposed law violates basic precepts of federalism, and is unconstitutional.
Yeah, that's why Hitler was also the person of the year. You can't deny that he had a huge impact on the world.
Took a gander at Wikipedia's page on Trump's 2000 presidential bid (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign,_2000). Makes for interesting reading.
For instance, Trump campaigned for universal health care, named Oprah Winfrey as his ideal running mate and called Pat Buchanan a "Hitler Lover".
I wonder if he really believes in anything, aside from making a quick exit with pockets full of suckers money that is.
Well fortunately the constitution doesn't allow Trump to become a dictator of the country. Political parties don't hang onto absolute power for long and I forsee a large gain of democrats in the house in senate in 2018. Mainly because history repeats itself.
Well fortunately the constitution doesn't allow Trump to become a dictator of the country. Political parties don't hang onto absolute power for long and I forsee a large gain of democrats in the house in senate in 2018. Mainly because history repeats itself.
The problem with assuming the constitution will prevent Trump and the Republican controlled (despite a 9-13% approval rating, just to show how fucked the system is) congress from going full on fascist is that that requires the checks and balances the system was designed to have to be working as intended. As it stands, within four years, there is a VERY good chance, I'd say more likely than not, that the entire federal government and the majority of state level governments will be under Republican control. The checks and balances are gone. We're in for a very rough probably four and likely eight years.
They also legalized torture in USA and kidnapped people without a trial. I find it sad that USA still hasn't done anything about that bit.
Unfortunately, its not quite that simple. Gitmo has several people that went in with no trial and with little cause. Releasing them would require to admitting to ruining the lives of several people; any administration that did it would bear the brunt of the backlash and significantly harm their chances of reelection.
Unfortunately, its not quite that simple. Gitmo has several people that went in with no trial and with little cause. Releasing them would require to admitting to ruining the lives of several people; any administration that did it would bear the brunt of the backlash and significantly harm their chances of reelection.
...And once again USA is going to ignore the horrible stuff they did because they don't want to admit that they do horrible stuff.
And saying "but the politicians don't care about it" only matters if you live in a country where the voters don't get to pick the politicians.
I don't, I know it's an outsiders view but the US isn't a democracy. It's an oligarchy (http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746). It's why the Dems ignored working class voters and the Repugs used them with cheerful cynicism.
Right now one oligarchy faction has chosen a dangerous clown as their public face, it doesn't mean they'll let him be their God emperor. He's merely useful to them right now. If he ceases to be useful, like Nixon they'll toss him under the bus.
None of this means that the symptoms of fascism or dictatorship can't take place. Attacks on civil rights, attacks on the press, attacks on voting rights. Police brutality and the use of military tactics to quash dissent. All of this is already happening. It's worth remembering that under the legal framework that Americans still have Japanese internment happened, death squads (the original KKK) happened, Joseph McCarthy's Un American Activities committee happened and yes, government sanction of torture and invasion of sovereign states on the flimsiest of pretexts happened.
What I find interesting about the history of Fascism is that people remember the strongmen themselves but not the oligarchs standing behind them. It's worth remembering that Mussolini's march on Rome was an attempt to quash socialist opposition and a general strike. Strongmen are the cudgel of the ruling classes, they're pulled out when public anger towards them gets particularly acute. That's the time to divide and rule that anger, rally some of it behind them and squish the remainder for "disloyalty", "being unpatriotic" or whatever.
You're assuming Trump is a friend of "the oligarchy". Not saying you're necessarily wrong, just that it's a bit early to judge. He's not even in office yet.
I'm not too worried about that and am more worried about Trump choosing exxon mobil CEO as secretary of state. A man who has no government or foreign policy experience. By drain the swamp I guess Trump meant get rid of anyone that might have an inkling of what they're doing and putting all of his rich friends or people who said nice things about him in power.
Cracking down on fake news is not totalitarian. Censoring people before they have said anything is but if they have repeatedly said something that is illegal or in this case propaganda to fool people then shutting them up is ok. At least that is how Finland treats the freedom of speech and even if the laws in USA are different it still doesn't mean that any deviation from the US way automatically makes you into a Commie-Nazi.
In my opinion, nonsense like that should in all honesty be called the utter tripe it is and forced out of focus by the media.
However it appears Clinton said something you deemed unfavorable, thus in a topic about a potentially very dangerous fascist you felt compelled to bring up Clinton (again) as if what she did was somehow equal to something Trump is out to do.
...Why?
pretending as if she has any remaining claim to relevancy
pretending as if she has any remaining claim to relevancy
You are talking about Clinton, right? aka the candidate who won the popular vote in a fucking landslide, right?
Because that doesn't sound like you read that particular memo...
I have started seeing a meme on the net claiming that Jill Stein's recount discovered voter fraud by the Democrats. But most websites that talk about the recount say that there has been no evidence of fraud. Are sites like this one reliable? http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/jill-stein-recount-finds-voter-fraud-hillary-supporters/
I have started seeing a meme on the net claiming that Jill Stein's recount discovered voter fraud by the Democrats. But most websites that talk about the recount say that there has been no evidence of fraud. Are sites like this one reliable? http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/jill-stein-recount-finds-voter-fraud-hillary-supporters/
And get two thirds of both parts of Congress to ratify it, which is borderline impossible. Plus, the people can petition their state governments to pass another Amendment to undo it which, again, would require a two thirds majority in the resultant convention.
Trump won't take over and become our new emperor. That's fearmongering bullshit and not how the god damned government works. He'll be another Bush, Jr. and that's going to be pretty much it.
I have started seeing a meme on the net claiming that Jill Stein's recount discovered voter fraud by the Democrats. But most websites that talk about the recount say that there has been no evidence of fraud. Are sites like this one reliable? http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/jill-stein-recount-finds-voter-fraud-hillary-supporters/
I usually go with a good rule of thumb: if the website refers to the liberal, currently minority part of the USA as the "Democrat Party", they're probably not a reliable source.
pretending as if she has any remaining claim to relevancy
You are talking about Clinton, right? aka the candidate who won the popular vote in a fucking landslide, right?
Because that doesn't sound like you read that particular memo...
She won the popular vote, yes, but lost states that Democratic candidates hadn't lost in almost thirty years. (Bush Sr. was the last Republican to take Michigan or Pennsylvania, and Reagan was the last one to take Wisconsin.) Her wing of the Democratic Party fell out of touch with what voters in those states think, and they remember all too well that it was Bill Clinton who did NAFTA and Hillary Clinton who called the TPP "the gold standard." As far as many of them are concerned, NAFTA shipped half their jobs out of the country and TPP would do for the other half, and they were not going to vote for someone who supported NAFTA and flip-flopped on the TPP.
She lost the Rust Belt, probably also costing the Democrats the Senate since Wisconsin and Pennsylvania had Republican incumbents, and if the Democratic Party has any designs on getting back into power, they need to ditch the corporatist wing of the party that can't credibly speak to those voters. Hillary Clinton, at this point, is to many voters the personification of that part of the Democratic Party, and as such for the party to have any hope she has to go away. Her clinging onto relevance only hurts the party at this point.
And if you dig into Trump's tweets, as I've had the misfortune of doing, you'll notice that this is a trend. He says one or two things that are stupid, irrelevant, or even offensive (to people who already don't like him), and once that becomes the story of the day, something more important but boring quietly gets announced. It's a strategy dudes use in sitcoms to distract their girlfriends from bad news. ("How was your day, honey?" "Oh, you know, I had a great lunch, fixed Steve's mistakes at work, and, uh, crashedyourcar. You know, same old.") And it's being used by a man who's about to be the goddamn president.
Best summary yet I've heard of Trumps method of hiding consequential news inside a torrent of bullshit. (http://www.cracked.com/blog/how-trump-plays-media-to-hide-big-news-stories/)QuoteAnd if you dig into Trump's tweets, as I've had the misfortune of doing, you'll notice that this is a trend. He says one or two things that are stupid, irrelevant, or even offensive (to people who already don't like him), and once that becomes the story of the day, something more important but boring quietly gets announced. It's a strategy dudes use in sitcoms to distract their girlfriends from bad news. ("How was your day, honey?" "Oh, you know, I had a great lunch, fixed Steve's mistakes at work, and, uh, crashedyourcar. You know, same old.") And it's being used by a man who's about to be the goddamn president.
Expect when World War Three is announced it will in between ten tweets boasting about his steaks, yelling at the New York Times, scolding the cast of Hamilton and musing about his new golf course!
EDIT: And buried somewhere in the torrent of BS spewing forth from the Trump campaign was the announcement that they'll move the US embassy to "Israel's eternal capital, Jerusalem," (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/donald-trump-david-friedman-israel-ambassador-pick-anger-arabs-palestinians-jerusalem-a7480041.html). Oh. Fuck.
So it's the "lefts" fault that the Donald is being manipulative, including his attempts to manipulate conflict in the already burning Middle East?
Naughty left for paying attention to the President elect of the United States I suppose.
Are his followers also foolish for being manipulated into voting for him-what with the non-existent wall he got them all so excited about?
Because I'm still not done beating the dead horse of the democrats' circular firing squad regarding "political correctness" and "identity politics," (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bernie-sanders-trump-won-because-people-are-tired-of-politically-correct-rhetoric/) it turns out Hillary did not focus her campaign on either, but focused mainly on jobs and the economy (http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/16/13972394/most-common-words-hillary-clinton-speech). You know, that nice little thing that those white people in the midwest cared about. In fact, she talked about jobs six times as often as she did Muslims, which was her most talked about political identity.The article also analyzes words used to describe both Trump and Clinton in the media, and found out that most of Trump's coverage focused on policy whereas Clinton's focused on dishonesty and corruption.
Sad that Bernie Sanders learned the worst possible lesson he could from Trump winning. "War on political correctness" is mainly an excuse to be rude and/or to lie about minorities.
Because I'm still not done beating the dead horse of the democrats' circular firing squad regarding "political correctness" and "identity politics," (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bernie-sanders-trump-won-because-people-are-tired-of-politically-correct-rhetoric/) it turns out Hillary did not focus her campaign on either, but focused mainly on jobs and the economy (http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/16/13972394/most-common-words-hillary-clinton-speech). You know, that nice little thing that those white people in the midwest cared about. In fact, she talked about jobs six times as often as she did Muslims, which was her most talked about political identity.The article also analyzes words used to describe both Trump and Clinton in the media, and found out that most of Trump's coverage focused on policy whereas Clinton's focused on dishonesty and corruption.
In terms of what Clinton talked about, I don't think that's enough to draw conclusions from. Speeches aren't the only part of a political campaign. I'm not dismissing the claim outright, just saying we need a more comprehensive analysis. Preferably a transparent one, too.
Sad that Bernie Sanders learned the worst possible lesson he could from Trump winning. "War on political correctness" is mainly an excuse to be rude and/or to lie about minorities.
I won't deny that some people use it to excuse their bigotry and bad manners. But saying it's "mainly" that is generalization. There are plenty of legit reasons to dislike political correctness.
Because I'm still not done beating the dead horse of the democrats' circular firing squad regarding "political correctness" and "identity politics," (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bernie-sanders-trump-won-because-people-are-tired-of-politically-correct-rhetoric/) it turns out Hillary did not focus her campaign on either, but focused mainly on jobs and the economy (http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/16/13972394/most-common-words-hillary-clinton-speech). You know, that nice little thing that those white people in the midwest cared about. In fact, she talked about jobs six times as often as she did Muslims, which was her most talked about political identity.The article also analyzes words used to describe both Trump and Clinton in the media, and found out that most of Trump's coverage focused on policy whereas Clinton's focused on dishonesty and corruption.
In terms of what Clinton talked about, I don't think that's enough to draw conclusions from. Speeches aren't the only part of a political campaign. I'm not dismissing the claim outright, just saying we need a more comprehensive analysis. Preferably a transparent one, too.
Speeches are good metric because those are given often and an analysis of the words can show, roughly, how much time she spent talking about each. While it may have some limitations, it's strength is that, unlike during Q&A sessions, this is her time that she gives to her issues. Another metric is to look at her website: out of 41 issues she gives detailed policies for, seven focus on identity politics (disability, racial justice, voting rights etc.) and 15 focus on economic factors (for the record, some could go either way, like paid family leave, so I just threw it into the identity politics section and excluded from the economic section, to err on the side of caution).
Now, if you think there is a better metric, by all means I welcome you presenting us with it. But, as it stands now, I do think there is enough evidence to show that she did focus more on the economy than identity politics.
Sad that Bernie Sanders learned the worst possible lesson he could from Trump winning. "War on political correctness" is mainly an excuse to be rude and/or to lie about minorities.
I won't deny that some people use it to excuse their bigotry and bad manners. But saying it's "mainly" that is generalization. There are plenty of legit reasons to dislike political correctness.
Such as...
Because I'm still not done beating the dead horse of the democrats' circular firing squad regarding "political correctness" and "identity politics," (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bernie-sanders-trump-won-because-people-are-tired-of-politically-correct-rhetoric/) it turns out Hillary did not focus her campaign on either, but focused mainly on jobs and the economy (http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/16/13972394/most-common-words-hillary-clinton-speech). You know, that nice little thing that those white people in the midwest cared about. In fact, she talked about jobs six times as often as she did Muslims, which was her most talked about political identity.The article also analyzes words used to describe both Trump and Clinton in the media, and found out that most of Trump's coverage focused on policy whereas Clinton's focused on dishonesty and corruption.
In terms of what Clinton talked about, I don't think that's enough to draw conclusions from. Speeches aren't the only part of a political campaign. I'm not dismissing the claim outright, just saying we need a more comprehensive analysis. Preferably a transparent one, too.
Speeches are good metric because those are given often and an analysis of the words can show, roughly, how much time she spent talking about each. While it may have some limitations, it's strength is that, unlike during Q&A sessions, this is her time that she gives to her issues. Another metric is to look at her website: out of 41 issues she gives detailed policies for, seven focus on identity politics (disability, racial justice, voting rights etc.) and 15 focus on economic factors (for the record, some could go either way, like paid family leave, so I just threw it into the identity politics section and excluded from the economic section, to err on the side of caution).
Now, if you think there is a better metric, by all means I welcome you presenting us with it. But, as it stands now, I do think there is enough evidence to show that she did focus more on the economy than identity politics.
On the other hand, both her speeches and her website were prepared in advance, whereas interviews and debates have more off-the-cuff dialogue. And since Americans tend to be cynical about politicians (especially those they view as "career" politicians), many of them will place more weight on what is said in a more naturalistic setting.
Sad that Bernie Sanders learned the worst possible lesson he could from Trump winning. "War on political correctness" is mainly an excuse to be rude and/or to lie about minorities.
I won't deny that some people use it to excuse their bigotry and bad manners. But saying it's "mainly" that is generalization. There are plenty of legit reasons to dislike political correctness.
Such as...
Such as the fact that nobody has the right to not be offended.
Donald is typical of "competent politicians"? In what universe? One where Chiang Kai-shek won China?So it's the "lefts" fault that the Donald is being manipulative, including his attempts to manipulate conflict in the already burning Middle East?
Naughty left for paying attention to the President elect of the United States I suppose.
Are his followers also foolish for being manipulated into voting for him-what with the non-existent wall he got them all so excited about?
Er, your initial complaint was about the lack of attention paid to things he was saying later in the day.
Do try to keep up.
The point is, if you garner a reputation for flying off the handle and go into full-on progressive SCREEEEEEEEE mode the moment the man says anything, any competent politician is going to structure their messaging so the more unsavoury bits get drowned out by the histrionics you've already had going on since earlier in the day.
If your view is obstructed because of the amount of saliva you've deposited on the bus window, there's a very simple solution...
But that is a flawed metric because she does NOT have the ability to dictate the course of those conversations. If she is asked "how do you feel about black lives matter" at a debate, then she answers the question and moves on. However, that is not her talking about the issue on her own volition, but instead a moderator or questioner asking her to talk about the issue. It would be like me asking you "why are you such a bad driver" and then saying "you keep talking about your driving, you must be self-conscious about it, therefore you're a bad driver."
You know, I knew as soon as I asked the question that I would get some wishiwashy answer like this. Fact of the matter is, nobody is gonna sit here and argue that SJWs totes have great ideas. However, that is not the way that people are talking about political correctness at the moment. At the moment, political correctness is Times' using "person of the year" instead of "man of the year." (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xCTQ3brk6w) It is a transgender woman using the women's bathroom. (http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/12/milo-yiannopoulos-harassed-a-trans-student-at-uw-milwaukee.html) It is calls to focus less on racial and gender equality in favor of white populism (https://medium.com/@marcushjohnson/we-should-call-brocialism-what-it-is-white-populism-ad257608ed52#.qifm7nf5w). And the people arguing against political correctness are playing a game of three-card monte with the rest of us, where they justify anti-PC beliefs by pointing to extremes before go after the mundane, a mundane which amounts to inclusion and treating non-white men with basic human decency. The irony in all of this is that when you look at the people griping about identity politics, the group that cares most about it happens to be white men.
But that is a flawed metric because she does NOT have the ability to dictate the course of those conversations. If she is asked "how do you feel about black lives matter" at a debate, then she answers the question and moves on. However, that is not her talking about the issue on her own volition, but instead a moderator or questioner asking her to talk about the issue. It would be like me asking you "why are you such a bad driver" and then saying "you keep talking about your driving, you must be self-conscious about it, therefore you're a bad driver."
Normally, I'd get where you're coming from, but considering the proven collusion between the media and the Clinton campaign, it's difficult to say whether she really was unable to control those conversations.
It's no secret that there are some people who call themselves "anti-PC" as an excuse to be rude or bigoted. We've already established that. However, saying this extends to everybody opposed to political correctness is generalizing things way too much. It's like saying all critics of neo-conservatism hate Jews. Right off the top of my head, I can name dozens, if not hundreds, of anti-PC people who don't fit the profile, up to and including President Obama (http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/310964-obama-on-political-correctness-dont-go-around-just-looking-for).
Also, different groups have different perceptions of "political correctness". I've heard it argued (not unreasonably) that political correctness exists on the right as well, it's just called by different names.
I understand that it may be tempting to view anti-PC people as stereotypical "angry white men." But that doesn't reflect the more complex reality. How about this: let's not try to generalize diverse groups of people. Especially not as an excuse to dismiss them wholesale.
But that is a flawed metric because she does NOT have the ability to dictate the course of those conversations. If she is asked "how do you feel about black lives matter" at a debate, then she answers the question and moves on. However, that is not her talking about the issue on her own volition, but instead a moderator or questioner asking her to talk about the issue. It would be like me asking you "why are you such a bad driver" and then saying "you keep talking about your driving, you must be self-conscious about it, therefore you're a bad driver."
Normally, I'd get where you're coming from, but considering the proven collusion between the media and the Clinton campaign, it's difficult to say whether she really was unable to control those conversations.
Proven collusion? Those are some fancy straws that you're grasping at. I assume you're talking about the Donna Brazile email, in which case Wikileaks indicated that one question regarding the death penalty was leaked in advance (one that Brazile forwarded without Hillary requesting her to do so). That is one question, out of 9 primary (and by the time people voted, another 3 general) presidential debates. I seriously have trouble believing that 1 leaked question indicates nefarious collusion in which she dictated the questions asked of her. What is more, even if I accept your argument that debates should be factored in with speeches, you've presented nothing indicating that it would skew her focus away from the economy to identity politics.
But nevermind that, the notion that she was in bed with the media goes full circle to the post that started this: that while Clinton mainly focused on policy, the coverage of Clinton focused on dishonesty and corruption (whereas the coverage of Trump focused on policy, no matter how ill-informed or buffoonish). Despite the fact that it is one question that arose in the course of twelve debates, since Hillary was held to a perfection standard, that one blemish is enough to give off an appearance of collusion.
It's no secret that there are some people who call themselves "anti-PC" as an excuse to be rude or bigoted. We've already established that. However, saying this extends to everybody opposed to political correctness is generalizing things way too much. It's like saying all critics of neo-conservatism hate Jews. Right off the top of my head, I can name dozens, if not hundreds, of anti-PC people who don't fit the profile, up to and including President Obama (http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/310964-obama-on-political-correctness-dont-go-around-just-looking-for).
Also, different groups have different perceptions of "political correctness". I've heard it argued (not unreasonably) that political correctness exists on the right as well, it's just called by different names.
I understand that it may be tempting to view anti-PC people as stereotypical "angry white men." But that doesn't reflect the more complex reality. How about this: let's not try to generalize diverse groups of people. Especially not as an excuse to dismiss them wholesale.
You really enjoy that middle ground fallacy, don't you? Some little shit on twitter rambling and hurring is not the same as Milo, Bernie, or the fucking president-elect. Wholly different topic, buddy.
- students wanting there to actually be monitoring of shitty language on campus and enforcement of manners in public spaces
- practitioners of a faith taking issue with a non-practitioner replicating sacred elements of said faith for the sake of putting on a showTake note, people. Culture, and especially religion, are not inherently sacred. If you believe a thing is sacred because your imaginary friend said so, fine, you do you. However, and I cannot stress this enough, you do not have the right to have your beliefs validated by non-believers. Honestly, I'm absolutely fed up with religious entitlement.
- students not wanting to have an arbitrary wait period before they can study poets who aren't white guysIf you want to change the content of university courses, you're going to need something a little more academically grounded than "fuck white dudes". Honestly, they're not even trying to pretend that it's about the actual poetry itself rather than merely the author's skin colour, I really don't see why you're implying that they should be taken seriously.
- Asian people wanting the Asian food in cafeterias to be more representative of actual Asian foodSee my above rant. You've no right to take away people's access to certain food because it's not made exactly the way you think it should be made. That, again, is one of the most entitled things I've ever heard.
- students wanting there to actually be monitoring of shitty language on campus and enforcement of manners in public spacesSee Rav's post. Not being offended is not a basic human right, despite what some may think.
- people with depression, anxiety disorder and/or mental trauma being impeded academically because of these neurological issues and desiring assistance from faculty that would help them work around these impedimentsAnd here's the one halfway valid point. Out of six. So yeah, that's a thing.
If ever there were an actual, agreeable definition of "PC" in the negative sense, that'd be it, yeah. Hate speech, I can see you getting the shit kicked out of you, legally. Inciting people to riot or commit crimes? Again, nothing wrong with punishing that. But, just being a douchebag? And "enforcement of manners in public spaces?" That's basically the exact thing people that bitch about "PC culture" mean when they complain. I shouldn't be required to be polite to people, or to even be nice. Play Ultima V and see what happens when you start legislating morality.
If you want to change the content of university courses, you're going to need something a little more academically grounded than "fuck white dudes". Honestly, they're not even trying to pretend that it's about the actual poetry itself rather than merely the author's skin colour, I really don't see why you're implying that they should be taken seriously.
Because cultural background, geographic area and identity affect the context and roots, and therefore substance, of the poetry any given poet produces, and so framing a desire for more immediate access to diverse poetry to study as "merely the author's skin colour" is pretty reductive.Okay, that argument has some merit. Too bad it's really not why this is a thing.
“It is unacceptable that a Yale student considering studying English literature might read only white male authors,” wrote student activists in a petition. “The Major English Poets sequences creates a culture that is especially hostile to students of color.”Again, the reason why the students want less white authors is simply because they're white. It's less to do with the idea that, say, the students would receive a better and more rounded understanding of poetry by studying authors with more diverse perspectives, and more that idiots are offended because white men.
Quote from: RavIf ever there were an actual, agreeable definition of "PC" in the negative sense, that'd be it, yeah. Hate speech, I can see you getting the shit kicked out of you, legally. Inciting people to riot or commit crimes? Again, nothing wrong with punishing that. But, just being a douchebag? And "enforcement of manners in public spaces?" That's basically the exact thing people that bitch about "PC culture" mean when they complain. I shouldn't be required to be polite to people, or to even be nice. Play Ultima V and see what happens when you start legislating morality.
I think I've worded myself poorly and communicated things I didn't intend to. I agree that legislating politeness on a broader level is a worrisome concept, but I don't think it's at all unreasonable for a school to hypothetically go "if you're going to insist on being an egregious douchebag to the students or faculty within our walls, you'll get reprimanded or even penalized in some way". Also, I don't really see anything wrong with a committee that would hypothetically inform people of ways certain language can be hurtful (although giving student committees actual punitive power would, again, be worrisome).
“It is unacceptable that a Yale student considering studying English literature might read only white male authors,” wrote student activists in a petition. “The Major English Poets sequences creates a culture that is especially hostile to students of color.”
I can retire to private life with the consciousness that I shall receive from posterity the credit of having been elected to the highest position in the gift of the people, without any of the cares and responsibilities of the office.
At the moment the electors gave in a blood red comet was seen in the sky, the ravens at the tower of London took flight never to be seen again, the sun was covered in darkness and the moon turned red, rains of frogs fell around the world and churchbells around the world started ringing by themselves with an endless "Doom, Doom, Doom".
Altogether better then I thought it would be
So, we've had our little recounts and we've tried to get the electoral college to do the undemocratic thing.
Now that's all over, can we echo the sage words of one Hillary R. Clinton and call on the losing side to accept the result of the election without (further) violence and shenanigans?
^_^
We both know he's trolling and doesn't care about that fact, or any other facts really.So, we've had our little recounts and we've tried to get the electoral college to do the undemocratic thing.
Now that's all over, can we echo the sage words of one Hillary R. Clinton and call on the losing side to accept the result of the election without (further) violence and shenanigans?
^_^
Odd, most of the violence and "shenanigans" have come from Trump's side (http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/10/us/post-election-hate-crimes-and-fears-trnd/). In fact, there have been almost 1000 reported hate crimes since the election, constituting a considerable uptick. Funny that when you elect a demagogue that ran on fear, bigotry, and scapegoating vulnerable minorities, people who already had those prejudices feel emboldened and lash out at those vulnerable minorities.
We both know he's trolling and doesn't care about that fact, or any other facts really.So, we've had our little recounts and we've tried to get the electoral college to do the undemocratic thing.
Now that's all over, can we echo the sage words of one Hillary R. Clinton and call on the losing side to accept the result of the election without (further) violence and shenanigans?
^_^
Odd, most of the violence and "shenanigans" have come from Trump's side (http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/10/us/post-election-hate-crimes-and-fears-trnd/). In fact, there have been almost 1000 reported hate crimes since the election, constituting a considerable uptick. Funny that when you elect a demagogue that ran on fear, bigotry, and scapegoating vulnerable minorities, people who already had those prejudices feel emboldened and lash out at those vulnerable minorities.
It's not why he's here.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CxarDpLUoAAnrCB.jpg)
Expect enraged squeals of "I'm not an anti semite", regardless - his style of "debate" fits the profile like a glove.
Queen, by chance have you been by the FSTDT main page and seen TimetoTurn's Turn to Insanity?
He honestly said everyone should heil him because he is "a man of unparalleled worth" or something.
A worthy replacement for Dynamic Paragon perhaps?
Check him out.The quality of our trolls is going down, all we have are two half hearted shitposters. We need zealous, serious crazy for proper entertainment. At least Ultimate Dynamic Draconic Concerned Citizen Paragon had that.
He's;
1) a TERF / says TERFs have good ideas.
2) praised the work of the Khmer Rouge
3) wants a totalitarian society with himself in charge.
4) said he believes he is going to form the course of the world.
5) called for eugenics programs and believes the mentally ill need to be culled for the sake of his world.
We have two shit posters? Who's the other?One Kommando Peste fan.
But I'm not a fan of Kommando Peste. Or does that mean that I'm the other one?We have two shit posters? Who's the other?One Kommando Peste fan.
You aren't nearly edgy enough. Say something misanthropic or nihilistic from 8chan willyaBut I'm not a fan of Kommando Peste. Or does that mean that I'm the other one?We have two shit posters? Who's the other?One Kommando Peste fan.
You aren't nearly edgy enough. Say something misanthropic or nihilistic from 8chan willyaBut I'm not a fan of Kommando Peste. Or does that mean that I'm the other one?We have two shit posters? Who's the other?One Kommando Peste fan.
We both know he's trolling and doesn't care about that fact, or any other facts really.So, we've had our little recounts and we've tried to get the electoral college to do the undemocratic thing.
Now that's all over, can we echo the sage words of one Hillary R. Clinton and call on the losing side to accept the result of the election without (further) violence and shenanigans?
^_^
Odd, most of the violence and "shenanigans" have come from Trump's side (http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/10/us/post-election-hate-crimes-and-fears-trnd/). In fact, there have been almost 1000 reported hate crimes since the election, constituting a considerable uptick. Funny that when you elect a demagogue that ran on fear, bigotry, and scapegoating vulnerable minorities, people who already had those prejudices feel emboldened and lash out at those vulnerable minorities.
It's not why he's here.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CxarDpLUoAAnrCB.jpg)
Expect enraged squeals of "I'm not an anti semite", regardless - his style of "debate" fits the profile like a glove.
Oddly, my first thought on reading that wasn't Contrarian, but Dynamic Paragon. I kind of miss that guy, but he was a fucking idiot.
Speaking of, I'm still a Dynamic Dragon sock puppet.
But that is a flawed metric because she does NOT have the ability to dictate the course of those conversations. If she is asked "how do you feel about black lives matter" at a debate, then she answers the question and moves on. However, that is not her talking about the issue on her own volition, but instead a moderator or questioner asking her to talk about the issue. It would be like me asking you "why are you such a bad driver" and then saying "you keep talking about your driving, you must be self-conscious about it, therefore you're a bad driver."
Normally, I'd get where you're coming from, but considering the proven collusion between the media and the Clinton campaign, it's difficult to say whether she really was unable to control those conversations.
Proven collusion? Those are some fancy straws that you're grasping at. I assume you're talking about the Donna Brazile email, in which case Wikileaks indicated that one question regarding the death penalty was leaked in advance (one that Brazile forwarded without Hillary requesting her to do so). That is one question, out of 9 primary (and by the time people voted, another 3 general) presidential debates. I seriously have trouble believing that 1 leaked question indicates nefarious collusion in which she dictated the questions asked of her. What is more, even if I accept your argument that debates should be factored in with speeches, you've presented nothing indicating that it would skew her focus away from the economy to identity politics.
But nevermind that, the notion that she was in bed with the media goes full circle to the post that started this: that while Clinton mainly focused on policy, the coverage of Clinton focused on dishonesty and corruption (whereas the coverage of Trump focused on policy, no matter how ill-informed or buffoonish). Despite the fact that it is one question that arose in the course of twelve debates, since Hillary was held to a perfection standard, that one blemish is enough to give off an appearance of collusion.
There are two problems with what you're saying. The first is in regards to WikiLeaks. What it revealed goes a lot deeper than Donna's email (http://observer.com/2016/11/new-dnc-emails-expose-more-dnc-media-clinton-campaign-collusion/). And the second is that the poll (http://www.gallup.com/poll/195596/email-dominates-americans-heard-clinton.aspx) only covers what Americans remembered "reading, seeing, or hearing" (their words, not mine), not what the media said. That's an important difference.It's no secret that there are some people who call themselves "anti-PC" as an excuse to be rude or bigoted. We've already established that. However, saying this extends to everybody opposed to political correctness is generalizing things way too much. It's like saying all critics of neo-conservatism hate Jews. Right off the top of my head, I can name dozens, if not hundreds, of anti-PC people who don't fit the profile, up to and including President Obama (http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/310964-obama-on-political-correctness-dont-go-around-just-looking-for).
Also, different groups have different perceptions of "political correctness". I've heard it argued (not unreasonably) that political correctness exists on the right as well, it's just called by different names.
I understand that it may be tempting to view anti-PC people as stereotypical "angry white men." But that doesn't reflect the more complex reality. How about this: let's not try to generalize diverse groups of people. Especially not as an excuse to dismiss them wholesale.
You really enjoy that middle ground fallacy, don't you? Some little shit on twitter rambling and hurring is not the same as Milo, Bernie, or the fucking president-elect. Wholly different topic, buddy.
You're right, it's not the same. But I never said it was. I'm not talking about people being idiots on social media. If that were all PC culture was, I could live with it. Unfortunately, it's a lot worse than just that. Take a gander at what's happening on college campuses (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/06/07/the-craziest-demands-of-college-kids-in-2016.html).
...The fuck is this?!
http://qz.com/870650/trumps-transition-team-is-rounding-up-names-of-us-state-department-staffers-working-on-gender-equality-issues/
I mean, it was already horrible that Trump is gathering up ahit listlist of government employees who have done work promoting awareness of climate change ...but what the hell is this shit?
And the thing is, there will come a point where even Faux Noise will be going "The President royally fucked up today, here's a panel of experts on how he fucked up," and he'll cut off their access to him.
Ironbite-he's going to destroy media relations in this country.
Trump has made it clear that he wants a “telegenic woman” to be his press secretary because “he thinks it would attract viewers and would help inoculate him from the charges of sexism that trailed his presidential campaign.”
And the thing is, there will come a point where even Faux Noise will be going "The President royally fucked up today, here's a panel of experts on how he fucked up," and he'll cut off their access to him.
Ironbite-he's going to destroy media relations in this country.
We both know he's trolling and doesn't care about that fact, or any other facts really.So, we've had our little recounts and we've tried to get the electoral college to do the undemocratic thing.
Now that's all over, can we echo the sage words of one Hillary R. Clinton and call on the losing side to accept the result of the election without (further) violence and shenanigans?
^_^
Odd, most of the violence and "shenanigans" have come from Trump's side (http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/10/us/post-election-hate-crimes-and-fears-trnd/). In fact, there have been almost 1000 reported hate crimes since the election, constituting a considerable uptick. Funny that when you elect a demagogue that ran on fear, bigotry, and scapegoating vulnerable minorities, people who already had those prejudices feel emboldened and lash out at those vulnerable minorities.
It's not why he's here.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CxarDpLUoAAnrCB.jpg)
Expect enraged squeals of "I'm not an anti semite", regardless - his style of "debate" fits the profile like a glove.
Way to underscore my point Conty, fling an obviously trite accusation and watch the sparks fly. Saying that the "left" is "in bed" with militant Islamists simply because most lefties aren't openly sectarian towards Muslims is completely daft.
Tell us Contrarian, was it lefties like me or right wing trolls that came up with the "le happy merchant" (http://i2.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/007/617/jew_basic.jpg)meme? There are plenty of antisemitic trolls on "your side of the aisle" too.
Or better yet, don't. THIS THREAD IS NOW ABOUT CONTRARIAN AND HIS BLOVIATING POINTS!!!
Tol, your latter link isn't working. Or a link at all.Fixed, sorry.
By the way, you know that old song-and-dance about how racial resentment got Trump elected? Yeah, turns out he won a greater share of the PoC vote (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/11/11/trump-got-more-votes-from-people-of-color-than-romney-did-heres-the-data/?utm_term=.fad1da8d07c2) than Romney did in 2012.Which is kinda like saying a tortoise will beat a goldfish in a hundred meter dash on land, but OK.
By the way, you know that old song-and-dance about how racial resentment got Trump elected? Yeah, turns out he won a greater share of the PoC vote (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/11/11/trump-got-more-votes-from-people-of-color-than-romney-did-heres-the-data/?utm_term=.fad1da8d07c2) than Romney did in 2012.Which is kinda like saying a tortoise will beat a goldfish in a hundred meter dash on land, but OK.
By the way, you know that old song-and-dance about how racial resentment got Trump elected? Yeah, turns out he won a greater share of the PoC vote (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/11/11/trump-got-more-votes-from-people-of-color-than-romney-did-heres-the-data/?utm_term=.fad1da8d07c2) than Romney did in 2012.Which is kinda like saying a tortoise will beat a goldfish in a hundred meter dash on land, but OK.
And look at 2000 and 2004. It really is more a factor of Obama doing really well among racial minorities than Trump doing well.
Comparing yesterday’s results with 2012, as this Washington Post feature does, shows that Trump actually performed slightly worse among white voters than Mitt Romney did. He did, however, perform better than Romney among blacks, Latinos and Asian Americans, making it more difficult to claim that racial resentment was the dominant factor explaining Trump’s support nationally.
Keep in mind there ARE conservative and reactionary minority people, as David Clark demonstrates.
He even spoke at the RNC.
"This guy [Obama] has continually, continually for eight years rubbed the stain of slavery, rubbed white peoples' nose in the stain of slavery,"...What the fuck does that even mean?
The proposal would bar the panel from reviewing any violation of criminal law by members of Congress, requiring that it turn over complaints instead to the House Ethics Committee or refer the matter to an appropriate federal law enforcement agency. The House Ethics Committee would also have the power to stop an investigation at any point and bars the ethics office from making any public statements about any matters or hiring any communications staff.
And the ethics office would no longer be able to accept or investigate any anonymous reports of alleged wrongdoing by members of Congress.
EDIT: Trump actually criticized this move. I am genuinely surprised. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38499284?ocid=socialflow_facebook&ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbcnews&ns_source=facebook
Anyone that actually pays attention to politics could have told you that "fiscal responsibility" is nothing more than a smokescreen. The problem is that enough of this country believes the lie to allow the Republicans to literally kill people through negligence.
And the Senate just defunded Planned Parenthood. I wish I was surprised.
I'm digging for more, but I may have spoken too soon. Stand by.
Regardless, the fact that the Republicans are more concerned with taking health care away from the poor than doing something actually productive is both depressing and infuriating.
Well in the case of Republicans it's more essential in winning primaries isn't it?Regardless, the fact that the Republicans are more concerned with taking health care away from the poor than doing something actually productive is both depressing and infuriating.
Playing to their base by getting to talk about how they're voting to defund "abortion giant" Planned Parenthood is productive for them. Shoring up your base is essential to winning elections.
This is the Republican congress were talking about as well. The we don't want to spend money on anything congress especially infrastructure. How he's going to get them to approve of a 8 to 12 billion dollar project is beyond me. And his jerk off fantasy of getting Mexico to pay for it? No, you know what? Build the wall using our taxes, do it so you can see how Mexico isn't going to pay for something they never wanted in the first place.
And there's a huge problem with the border wall I don't think Trump's addressed yet: Texas. Treaties forbid both America and Mexico to build anything in the Rio Grande's floodplains, which means he'd have to build much of the wall on what is currently private property. Most of said private property is owned by ranchers, whose livelihoods are tied to the land they own, so it's unlikely they'd sell. He could use eminent domain to get the land, but that would be a very risky move.
Thing is doing such a thing would open his own supporters eyes as to just how bad the GOP really is.
Ironbite-this is not something that'll ever come to fruition in his lifetime.
Thing is doing such a thing would open his own supporters eyes as to just how bad the GOP really is.
For much of the Cold war the code to launch US nuclear missiles was just a row of zeroes because that's what the default was. The fact that no one tried to launch the nukes while joking around or because they wanted to start WW3 is proof enough that people are capable of being good.
For much of the Cold war the code to launch US nuclear missiles was just a row of zeroes because that's what the default was. The fact that no one tried to launch the nukes while joking around or because they wanted to start WW3 is proof enough that people are capable of being good.Eh, it proves that omnicidal/suicidal types are relatively rare.
...new polling data suggesting that Trump voters are an incoherent mess when you ask them about regulating the financial industries or corruption in politics, but have a strongly cohesive ideology when it comes to race or gender issues.
Because calling everyone who wanted to vote for Trump "racist and sexist" worked out so well in 2016. That's why Hillary Clinton's going to be President in less than two weeks. And that's why there's a Democratic majority in the Senate.
...Oh wait, there isn't, and she won't be.
Because calling everyone who wanted to vote for Trump "racist and sexist" worked out so well in 2016. That's why Hillary Clinton's going to be President in less than two weeks. And that's why there's a Democratic majority in the Senate.Well if the data shows that Republicans who were in fact racist were more in favor of Trump than less racist candidates (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/08/01/trump-is-the-first-republican-in-modern-times-to-win-the-partys-nomination-on-anti-minority-sentiments/?utm_term=.05027d77b6e6) why not call it by it's name? Oh, I forgot. Pesky facts hurt Repub feels, my bad.
...Oh wait, there isn't, and she won't be.
This is shown in figure 4. Disciplining children and whipping sex criminals (circled), keeping the nation safe, protecting social order and skepticism (‘few products live up to the claims of their advertisers…products don’t last as long as they used to’) correlate with Brexit sentiment. These attitude dimensions cluster within the third of the map known as the ‘Settlers’, for whom belonging, certainty, roots and safety are paramount. This segment is also disproportionately opposed to immigration in virtually every country Dade has sampled. By contrast, people oriented toward success and display (‘Prospectors’), or who prioritise expressive individualism and cultural equality (‘Pioneers’) voted Remain.
Considering how tight the election was (less than 80,000 votes over three states), the economic issues could well have pushed Trump over the top, but the base was the bigoted stuff.I agree that economic issues could well have been an issue in the former "rust belt" areas, but
And one thing I found interesting about the sexism was that the sort of sexists who supported Trump were the actively woman-hating kind of sexists. The traditional-gender-roles sexists did not go disproportionately to Trump, even though President isn't exactly a "traditional role" for women in US society.
Considering how tight the election was (less than 80,000 votes over three states), the economic issues could well have pushed Trump over the top, but the base was the bigoted stuff.I agree that economic issues could well have been an issue in the former "rust belt" areas, but whites across the socioeconomic spectrum overwhelmingly voted for Trump (http://This is shown in figure 4. Disciplining children and whipping sex criminals (circled), keeping the nation safe, protecting social order and skepticism (‘few products live up to the claims of their advertisers…products don’t last as long as they used to’) correlate with Brexit sentiment. These attitude dimensions cluster within the third of the map known as the ‘Settlers’, for whom belonging, certainty, roots and safety are paramount. This segment is also disproportionately opposed to immigration in virtually every country Dade has sampled. By contrast, people oriented toward success and display (‘Prospectors’), or who prioritise expressive individualism and cultural equality (‘Pioneers’) voted Remain.). The glue that held them together was whiteness, not class.
And one thing I found interesting about the sexism was that the sort of sexists who supported Trump were the actively woman-hating kind of sexists. The traditional-gender-roles sexists did not go disproportionately to Trump, even though President isn't exactly a "traditional role" for women in US society.
I agree that the Centrist parties the world over aren't doing enough to adress middle class and working class concerns because they work for the upper class, but people tut tutting others for merely identifying the nativist, xenophobic and quite frankly racist and sexist trends taking place across the world are fooling themselves.
There's also the assumption that those voting Trump would have even been aware of the scorn of the "East Coast elites" or felt sore because of their accusations of racism given that Trump voters don't even consume the same media as Democrat voters. (http://www.ibtimes.com/watching-fox-makes-viewers-lean-republican-researchers-say-1772450)
Because calling everyone who wanted to vote for Trump "racist and sexist" worked out so well in 2016. That's why Hillary Clinton's going to be President in less than two weeks. And that's why there's a Democratic majority in the Senate.Well if the data shows that Republicans who were in fact racist were more in favor of Trump than less racist candidates (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/08/01/trump-is-the-first-republican-in-modern-times-to-win-the-partys-nomination-on-anti-minority-sentiments/?utm_term=.05027d77b6e6) why not call it by it's name? Oh, I forgot. Pesky facts hurt Repub feels, my bad.
...Oh wait, there isn't, and she won't be.
Yeah, economics played a part in this election. But when surveyed Trump voters are united in issues towards race, religion, migration and gender-the "culture war" issues. Not so much economics, to stay mum about this because you might upset some on the fence voters is to encourage willful ignorance.
Brexit was also more about "values" like support of capital punishment and opposing ethnic diversity (http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/personal-values-brexit-vote/) than it was about the economy.QuoteThis is shown in figure 4. Disciplining children and whipping sex criminals (circled), keeping the nation safe, protecting social order and skepticism (‘few products live up to the claims of their advertisers…products don’t last as long as they used to’) correlate with Brexit sentiment. These attitude dimensions cluster within the third of the map known as the ‘Settlers’, for whom belonging, certainty, roots and safety are paramount. This segment is also disproportionately opposed to immigration in virtually every country Dade has sampled. By contrast, people oriented toward success and display (‘Prospectors’), or who prioritise expressive individualism and cultural equality (‘Pioneers’) voted Remain.
How about that?
First borked link fixed. Secondly, here's some data (http://www.journalism.org/2014/10/21/political-polarization-media-habits/) showing that conservatives overwhelmingly cluster around a single news source. Guess who?Your first link doesn't seem to be working. And your second link doesn't say that Republicans and Democrats consume different media, just that partisan outlets influence people's votes.Considering how tight the election was (less than 80,000 votes over three states), the economic issues could well have pushed Trump over the top, but the base was the bigoted stuff.I agree that economic issues could well have been an issue in the former "rust belt" areas, but whites across the socioeconomic spectrum overwhelmingly voted for Trump (http://This is shown in figure 4. Disciplining children and whipping sex criminals (circled), keeping the nation safe, protecting social order and skepticism (‘few products live up to the claims of their advertisers…products don’t last as long as they used to’) correlate with Brexit sentiment. These attitude dimensions cluster within the third of the map known as the ‘Settlers’, for whom belonging, certainty, roots and safety are paramount. This segment is also disproportionately opposed to immigration in virtually every country Dade has sampled. By contrast, people oriented toward success and display (‘Prospectors’), or who prioritise expressive individualism and cultural equality (‘Pioneers’) voted Remain.). The glue that held them together was whiteness, not class.
And one thing I found interesting about the sexism was that the sort of sexists who supported Trump were the actively woman-hating kind of sexists. The traditional-gender-roles sexists did not go disproportionately to Trump, even though President isn't exactly a "traditional role" for women in US society.
I agree that the Centrist parties the world over aren't doing enough to adress middle class and working class concerns because they work for the upper class, but people tut tutting others for merely identifying the nativist, xenophobic and quite frankly racist and sexist trends taking place across the world are fooling themselves.
There's also the assumption that those voting Trump would have even been aware of the scorn of the "East Coast elites" or felt sore because of their accusations of racism given that Trump voters don't even consume the same media as Democrat voters. (http://www.ibtimes.com/watching-fox-makes-viewers-lean-republican-researchers-say-1772450)
I don't think I ever mentioned anything about 'don't upset the poor Republicans', but hey, thanks for putting those words in my mouth. I'm sure as a liberal Democrat, it's totally fair to basically call me a Republican sympathizer. My point was, that strategy didn't win. And as we've talked about earlier, talking about how "all those Trump voters are just a bunch of racists and sexists" didn't actually sway anyone away from Trump, which is kind of appalling considering how terrible a candidate he was. And yet, we're still hearing about it. I'm no Trump voter, I personally despise the man and think he's going to ruin our country, along with every one of his corporatist, slimy, and yes, bigoted cabinet picks. But let's be real here - the media message over the last year has been "Voting for Trump makes you a racist, a sexist, and a terrible person", and only after November 8th are people starting to realize that no, it doesn't necessarily mean that.
I'm not really sure where I'm going with this so I'll just leave this here, I've gotta go get dinner anyway.
Come to think of it, Lex Luthor was elected president at one point. Oh, what I wouldn't give to have Superman show up and stop Trump.Truth and justice? Clearly a libtard. Jumps tall buildings with a single bound? No respect for bewdiful walls!
Because calling everyone who wanted to vote for Trump "racist and sexist" worked out so well in 2016. That's why Hillary Clinton's going to be President in less than two weeks. And that's why there's a Democratic majority in the Senate.
...Oh wait, there isn't, and she won't be.
This. Trying to shame people into turning against Trump only helped him and the GOP. Doubling down will just make things worse.
Measures of racism and sexism (http://people.umass.edu/schaffne/schaffner_et_al_IDC_conference.pdf), and markers of social status such as a college degree, did a much better job predicting whom voters would support [than economic issues].
My apologies, then. I've gotten so used to people saying "everyone who voted Trump is a racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic nutjob, feel terrible" that I've developed a knee-jerk reaction. It doesn't help that being painted by the media as a bunch of said deplorable people is actually one of the primary complaints of my Trump-voting friends (as much as I can't stand their votes, they are friends...). Nevertheless, I seem to have misunderstood you.My apologies to you for insinuating that you were trying to protect the feels of Trumpkins, that was shitty of me.
It's a proverb, they don't always make sense. Unfortunately it also means that people don't sometimes get the point. For example, I was looking for a good translation to this particular proverb and found a forum where someone complained about it because "doesn't that mean that if I insult Africans then *magical sound* I become a nigger?" ...No. That's not what it means.
I mean the point basically is "the one that screams in pain is the one that is in pain" kinda dealie. Why was someone throwing around sticks or firewood? It's not clear. Maybe the dogs were barking in the night and the owner wanted to shut 'em up?
It's a proverb, they don't always make sense. Unfortunately it also means that people don't sometimes get the point. For example, I was looking for a good translation to this particular proverb and found a forum where someone complained about it because "doesn't that mean that if I insult Africans then *magical sound* I become a nigger?" ...No. That's not what it means.
I mean the point basically is "the one that screams in pain is the one that is in pain" kinda dealie. Why was someone throwing around sticks or firewood? It's not clear. Maybe the dogs were barking in the night and the owner wanted to shut 'em up?
Makes sense, I've always just assumed Lana was a Trump voter, but that gives more circumstantial evidence.
I'm not about to accuse Lana of being a deep cover Trumpkin, it's entirely possible to be a socially conservative Democrat. I don't know what your motives are, I've no reason to suspect dishonesty and without further information I'm not about to hazard a guess.
That said Lana, pointing out the influence of racism in an election isn't the same as calling people racist. It's also not an either/or choice between racism and the economy. Racist attitudes don't exist in a vacuum, support for France's National Front exist in areas where unemployment is high (http://www.politics.as.nyu.edu/docs/IO/5628/Stephan_Thesis.pdf) and of course the Nazis and other Fascist groups arose in the context of the Great Depression. To say that racism is a major factor in Trump's success is not the same as saying all his supporters are a bunch of racists.
presumably flamboyant and bizarre assassins, because life is apparently genre shifted to a really, really weird Bond story.
Tinkle, tinkle, little czar. Putin put you where you are. (https://twitter.com/GeorgeTakei/status/819003453057990656)
Do you think the KGB is going to pull out the umbrella that shoots poison darts from storage just for this?
I guess your quoting the Daily Bell who are known for promoting belief in "cultural Marxism" (http://www.thedailybell.com/editorials/nelson-hultberg-cultural-marxism-the-corruption-of-america/) seems a tad socially conservative, especially when there are less long winded explanations (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Kafkatrapping) that don't involve pegging responsibility on the phenomenon on to one particular faction or persuasion.
Regardless your belief that the effect of racism in the election was exaggerated should be coupled with reasons why. The fact that more minorities voted for Trump than Romney is not sufficient. It doesn't actually show that this invalidates the theory that racism played a major role in Trump's election.
...This story has continued escalating: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/5876de6be4b0f8a7254484d6?timestamp=1484189321777
Now the British spy who was the source behind "Trump paid to be peed on by Russian prostitutes" story has fled his home and is hiding from assassins?
During the press conference yesterday, Trump's stoolies brought out a bunch of folders filled with papers they wouldn't let reporters see because it contained his "business plan". The papers were all blank.
Ironbite-WE'RE ALL GONNA FUCKING DIE!
During the press conference yesterday, Trump's stoolies brought out a bunch of folders filled with papers they wouldn't let reporters see because it contained his "business plan". The papers were all blank.
Cultural Marxism is a thing, a conspiracy theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School#Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory) invented by paranoid anti semites (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/19/cultural-marxism-a-uniting-theory-for-rightwingers-who-love-to-play-the-victim) thing.
(http://rationalwiki.org/w/images/thumb/2/23/Dummies_Guide_to_Cultural_Marxist_caste_system.png/575px-Dummies_Guide_to_Cultural_Marxist_caste_system.png)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYQo6LI3Y7c
FFS, if you believe that modern identity politics is secretly a shadowy fifth column of super secret Marxists then you give them a hell of a lot more organisational credit than what guys like this (http://i.imgur.com/OsiuQQX.jpg) are due.
Anyone else have him randomly PM them? Apparently because im not a fan of BLM he thinks im "like the type of guy I can get along with.". LOL. Im not a right wing nut job like him. Might like BLM or third wave feminism, but im still a a million miles away from him.
What makes you think I'm a "right-wing nutjob?"
I can't speak for IanC, but your generally anti-feminist, anti-PC attitude, complete with references to "cultural Marxism" is a dead ringer for "right-wing nutjob". You predictably take up the cause of the right-wing outrage-of-the-week (remember Vox Day tampering with the Hugos?) and FQA always pummels you for it. You've got nothing else.
Nothing except 8-year-olds, dude.
Yeah, this pretty much sums it up. This is why even though Ironchew is an edgelord, I enjoy him. Because he gots smarts.
(https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/89879/width926/image-20150728-7665-1iu4wk1.jpg)Cultural Marxism is a thing, a conspiracy theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School#Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory) invented by paranoid anti semites (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/19/cultural-marxism-a-uniting-theory-for-rightwingers-who-love-to-play-the-victim) thing.
(http://rationalwiki.org/w/images/thumb/2/23/Dummies_Guide_to_Cultural_Marxist_caste_system.png/575px-Dummies_Guide_to_Cultural_Marxist_caste_system.png)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYQo6LI3Y7c
FFS, if you believe that modern identity politics is secretly a shadowy fifth column of super secret Marxists then you give them a hell of a lot more organisational credit than what guys like this (http://i.imgur.com/OsiuQQX.jpg) are due.
Just because a term's frequently (mis)used by paranoid anti-Semites doesn't mean it's not real (http://theconversation.com/cultural-marxism-and-our-current-culture-wars-part-1-45299).
Anyone else have him randomly PM them? Apparently because im not a fan of BLM he thinks im "like the type of guy I can get along with.". LOL. Im not a right wing nut job like him. Might like BLM or third wave feminism, but im still a a million miles away from him.
What makes you think I'm a "right-wing nutjob?"
I can't speak for IanC, but your generally anti-feminist, anti-PC attitude, complete with references to "cultural Marxism" is a dead ringer for "right-wing nutjob". You predictably take up the cause of the right-wing outrage-of-the-week (remember Vox Day tampering with the Hugos?) and FQA always pummels you for it. You've got nothing else.
Nothing except 8-year-olds, dude.
Yeah, this pretty much sums it up. This is why even though Ironchew is an edgelord, I enjoy him. Because he gots smarts.
Man all this cultural marxism gives me deja vu. Lana, are you Dynamic Paragon 3.0?
(https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/89879/width926/image-20150728-7665-1iu4wk1.jpg)Cultural Marxism is a thing, a conspiracy theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School#Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory) invented by paranoid anti semites (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/19/cultural-marxism-a-uniting-theory-for-rightwingers-who-love-to-play-the-victim) thing.
(http://rationalwiki.org/w/images/thumb/2/23/Dummies_Guide_to_Cultural_Marxist_caste_system.png/575px-Dummies_Guide_to_Cultural_Marxist_caste_system.png)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYQo6LI3Y7c
FFS, if you believe that modern identity politics is secretly a shadowy fifth column of super secret Marxists then you give them a hell of a lot more organisational credit than what guys like this (http://i.imgur.com/OsiuQQX.jpg) are due.
Just because a term's frequently (mis)used by paranoid anti-Semites doesn't mean it's not real (http://theconversation.com/cultural-marxism-and-our-current-culture-wars-part-1-45299).
Uncle:Yes Comrades, we will bring about a workers revolt in the west by dividing the left into competing tribes that are happy so long as they have enough people from marginalized grouplets in executive level jobs.
Igor:Oh fuck, he's been at the Stolichnaya again...
Uncle:: Igor for the gulag, MORE STOLICHNAYA FOR EVERYBODIES!!!
Igor *as trapdoor opens beneath his feet*:Aiiieeeeeeeee...
Oh FFS Lana, Cultural Marxism is a theory where theJoosFrankfurt School conspired to destroy western civilization from within, because reasons. That is a conspiracy theory from it's foundation stone up.
As far as the United States is concerned historically the greatest proponents of identity politics were Democrats pre Nixon and Republicans post and none of the people promoting the identity politics I'm referring to were remotely Marxist.
Alright Lana, having read your article I am going to have to call bullshit on the Cultural Marxism thing.
a) Your article claims that it can be used for more than the conspiracy theory and talks about several decades old thingy which has never been talked about again.
b) When someone talks about it now they are talking about the conspiracy theory, this includes the website that you were defending. That the phrase once had a different meaning is a red herring. Example: If someone calls me a "faggoty barbarian cuck" would fairness demand that I consider that he he may be using the original meaning of "barbarian" which referred to people living north of Rome who did not speak latin (as I sadly do not) and ignore that he also used the words "faggoty" and "cuck" and was clearly insulting me? Context matters.
Man all this cultural marxism gives me deja vu. Lana, are you Dynamic Paragon 3.0?
Alright Lana, having read your article I am going to have to call bullshit on the Cultural Marxism thing.
a) Your article claims that it can be used for more than the conspiracy theory and talks about several decades old thingy which has never been talked about again.
b) When someone talks about it now they are talking about the conspiracy theory, this includes the website that you were defending. That the phrase once had a different meaning is a red herring. Example: If someone calls me a "faggoty barbarian cuck" would fairness demand that I consider that he he may be using the original meaning of "barbarian" which referred to people living north of Rome who did not speak latin (as I sadly do not) and ignore that he also used the words "faggoty" and "cuck" and was clearly insulting me? Context matters.
Sometimes, when people complain about “cultural Marxism”, their emphasis seems to be on something more specific. They are thinking, perhaps, of a left-wing variety of cultural authoritarianism: a tendency to criticize movies, video games, and other cultural products in a very harsh way that implies a need for government censorship. Short of that, it may at least imply the need for aggressive social policing and an environment of public shaming.
Man all this cultural marxism gives me deja vu. Lana, are you Dynamic Paragon 3.0?
Yeah I'm thinking this too. Lana's posting about the same topics, in the same style, with the same phrases and getting into the same fights as Dynamic Paragon.
Look, Lana if you aren't Paragon I apologize. Dynamic Dragon was a full of himself asshole who got banned for making sockpuppets but came back with a sockpuppet called Ultimate Paragon, where got even worse become devote gamergater and even defending childporn on 8chan because free speech before getting banned again. He had a very similar posting style on a lot of the same topic as you. If I've misread you and you are a different person I am sorry for the mistake but I hope you understand the concern over not wanting a childporn defender back.
a) It's been largely drowned out in all the misuse, but people still do talk about Cultural Marxism in the original sense. For example, this book (https://books.google.com/books?id=Pa3DCwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+critical+turn+in+education&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi989a_k8PRAhWIlxoKHaa8AUkQ6AEIIzAB#v=onepage&q=the%20critical%20turn%20in%20education&f=false) was published just last year.
b) That's not necessarily the case. There are people who use it to describe a particular flavor of left-wing authoritarianism, as my article says:
Current left-wing activism can, indeed, display hyperbolic, philistine, and authoritarian tendencies, but these have little to do with any influence from Marx, Soviet totalitarianism, or the work of the Frankfurt School. They have more, I suspect, to do with tendencies toward moral and political purity in almost any movement that seeks social change.
This was the purpose of the ideology of Cultural Marxism — to root out the fundamentals of Judeo-Christian civilization and the splendid Camelot of Freedom it had created in America from 1776 to 1913. What is horrifying is that it has been triumphant. Marx has not buried us in an economic sense as Khrushchev boasted he would; but Marx has buried us in a cultural sense as Antonio Gramsci and Georg Lukacs planned over 80 years ago. James Jaeger's film demonstrates this in lucid fashion that is at once fascinating and abhorrent.
“In January Trump will start governing and will have to make compromises. Even small ones will trigger squabbles between the ‘alt-right’. ‘Trump betrayed us.’ ‘No, you’re betraying us for saying Trump betrayed us.’ And so on. The alt-right’s appearance of influence will diminish more and more as they start to fight amongst themselves.”
In an email interview Peter Brimelow, founder of the webzine Vdare.com, which alleges Mexican plots to remake the US, said Trump’s failure to deliver “important bones” could trigger a backlash. “I think the right of the right is absolutely prepared to revolt. It’s what they do.”
There is, however, a catch: Weber, Taylor and Brimelow – all classified as “extremists” by the Southern Poverty Law Center – said Trump’s victory energised the far-right and that the movement can grow with or without White House help.
And his lawyer says outright that the whole thing happened in front of witnesses, which is why it can't be sexual assault! Von Keyserling would never sexually assault someone in front of witnesses!Reminds me of something... (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/InsaneTrollLogic)
And you expect us to believe that the Alt-Right may be referring to the several decades old political thingy when they say that the Cultural Marxists are trying to destroy western countries and flood them with Muslims? Because if that's not what you are saying then I don't get how it is relevant to this discussion.
I think one side fuels the other side. George w bush made way for the rise of Obama. Fears of Obama created the tea party and then the alt right. 4 to 8 years of Trump, deregulation, mass privatization, corporate abuse and a rising interest in Bernie sanders might fuel a socialist movement. Trump voters like Obama voters will most likely increasingly feel disenfranchised as they feel their candidate didn't really help them much and most likely won't turn out to vote next time. It happens time and time again.
http://www.rawstory.com/2017/01/conn-republican-arrested-for-grabbing-womans-genitals-his-lawyer-says-it-was-a-playful-gesture/
a) Yet more evidence that people are starting to think that they can all act like Trump now with no repercussions.
b) It's not really "your word against mine" if you do it on camera and using the defense "he would never do such a thing" is likewise kinda futile against video evidence.
http://www.rawstory.com/2017/01/conn-republican-arrested-for-grabbing-womans-genitals-his-lawyer-says-it-was-a-playful-gesture/
a) Yet more evidence that people are starting to think that they can all act like Trump now with no repercussions.
b) It's not really "your word against mine" if you do it on camera and using the defense "he would never do such a thing" is likewise kinda futile against video evidence.
What a revolting excuse for a human being. And if he thinks anybody will buy this, he's delusional.
We Europeans have our fate in our own hands,” the German chancellor said after the publication of the US president-elect’s interviews with the Times and German tabloid Bild. “He has presented his positions once more. They have been known for a while. My positions are also known.”
How do you define "the PC crowd" "doubling down" in this context? Do you, like others seem to, refer to people calling supporters of a racist racist for supporting a racist, or is it something else? For that matter, how do you define "political correctness" in the particular context of it aiding Trump's presidency?
Merkal and Hollande aren't betting on Trump helping them or the EU. (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/16/europes-fate-is-in-our-hands-angela-merkels-defiant-reply-to-trump)QuoteWe Europeans have our fate in our own hands,” the German chancellor said after the publication of the US president-elect’s interviews with the Times and German tabloid Bild. “He has presented his positions once more. They have been known for a while. My positions are also known.”
Translation, we have Russian puppets on both sides of our borders now. If Germany and France go for ultra nationalist governments I've no doubt Putin will start moving his sphere of influence aggressively westwards.
Hell no! I was saying that people can (mis)use the term "Cultural Marxism" without being loony Jew-haters. Maybe they're academics talking about the history of sociology, or maybe they're geeks angry at the aggressive, heavy-handed "criticism" of their hobbies. Either way, that doesn't make them alt-right deplorables.
Not all of them, but I and others have shown with evidence, in this very thread that a buttload of them are. Walks like a duck, talks like a duck.How do you define "the PC crowd" "doubling down" in this context? Do you, like others seem to, refer to people calling supporters of a racist racist for supporting a racist, or is it something else? For that matter, how do you define "political correctness" in the particular context of it aiding Trump's presidency?
Before I say anything else, I'd like to point out that saying Trump's supporters are racist is unfair. Voters don't magically take on their candidate's character flaws. Even the Guardian admitted (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/13/donald-trump-supporters-bigots-left-demonise) that saying Trump supporters are all racist is dangerously reductionist.
Hell no! I was saying that people can (mis)use the term "Cultural Marxism" without being loony Jew-haters. Maybe they're academics talking about the history of sociology, or maybe they're geeks angry at the aggressive, heavy-handed "criticism" of their hobbies. Either way, that doesn't make them alt-right deplorables.
Okay Paragon I'm curious. Name me one example of someone nowadays who calls people "cultural marxists" and isn't a loony Jew hater, or willing accomplice of loony Jew-haters.
Not all of them, but I and others have shown with evidence, in this very thread that a buttload of them are. Walks like a duck, talks like a duck.How do you define "the PC crowd" "doubling down" in this context? Do you, like others seem to, refer to people calling supporters of a racist racist for supporting a racist, or is it something else? For that matter, how do you define "political correctness" in the particular context of it aiding Trump's presidency?
Before I say anything else, I'd like to point out that saying Trump's supporters are racist is unfair. Voters don't magically take on their candidate's character flaws. Even the Guardian admitted (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/13/donald-trump-supporters-bigots-left-demonise) that saying Trump supporters are all racist is dangerously reductionist.
Again we are reducing the election to economic issues OR racism. It was economic issues AND racism. Racism may not have been the tipping point for Trump's support and you could reasonably argue that it wasn't.
The Democrats failure to reach out to previously loyal voters who voted for Obama but don't live in the big cities or didn't see the material benefits of his administration. His siding with the banks instead of the people who were screwed by them. Clinton's insistence that America was already great when for many Americans it wasn't. Sure as eggs are eggs all that was important.
But not calling a fair chunk of Trump's supporters racist is counterfactual (http://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/rngs/USA-ELECTION-RACE/010020H7174/USA-ELECTION-RACE.jpg), and the notion of not calling people what they are because you might upset their feelings is like a caricature of "the PC crowd"
EDIT: "The Guardian" didn't admit that. It wasn't an editorial, it was an opinion piece. In others racism was pegged as a contributing factor, (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/09/how-did-donald-trump-win-analysis)
White men, and particularly uneducated white men, as a group, are responsible for Trump's election (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/behind-trumps-victory-divisions-by-race-gender-education/). Sorry you don't like statistics, but your fee fees do not invalidate facts.
Black men, and particularly uneducated black men, as a group, are responsible for gang violence. Sorry you don't like statistics, but your fee fees do not invalidate facts.
What is more, can have multiple conversations and values regarding white privilege and economic equality: it is a false dichotomy that we mush choose between one or the other (https://medium.com/@marcushjohnson/we-should-call-brocialism-what-it-is-white-populism-ad257608ed52#.uupyjqe62) that is insidiously pushed to silence civil rights (https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/800/1*sqjUycQpVrWo6k_kH0awsA.jpeg). You don't have to be an ally, and you can continue to talk about economics all you want.
Further, by focusing on identity politics and Govenor McPotty's trans-bathroom bill, Democrats won a meaningful race in North Carolina: (http://www.vox.com/2016/12/13/13936226/samantha-bee-identity-politics-democrats) it is not our way back, it is our way forward in changing times where racial minorities and LGBTQ people continue to make up a larger cross-section of society, particularly as prominent republicans continue to go full racist shitbag. But, as I posted earlier, reminding white people that they will make up less than 50% of this country in 2042 scares them and makes them more likely to vote for the Donald.
Among Whites low in ethnic identification, in contrast, the racial shift condition had no effect on group status threat or support for anti-immigrant policies, but did cause decreased positivity toward Trump and decreased opposition to political correctness. Group status threat did not mediate these effects.
And I've already posted above how measurements of racial insensitivity correlated with, in a statistically significant way, one's willingness to vote for Trump, as well as an academic article explaining the cause and effect there.
Hell no! I was saying that people can (mis)use the term "Cultural Marxism" without being loony Jew-haters. Maybe they're academics talking about the history of sociology, or maybe they're geeks angry at the aggressive, heavy-handed "criticism" of their hobbies. Either way, that doesn't make them alt-right deplorables.
Okay Paragon I'm curious. Name me one example of someone nowadays who calls people "cultural marxists" and isn't a loony Jew hater, or willing accomplice of loony Jew-haters.
There's nobody named Paragon here.
Why should we assign collective guilt to white men? Let's change a few words:QuoteBlack men, and particularly uneducated black men, as a group, are responsible for gang violence. Sorry you don't like statistics, but your fee fees do not invalidate facts.
And suddenly, it looks like it was posted by an r/coontown refugee.
There are millions of white Americans who didn't vote for Trump. Do they deserve to be blamed for his election? No, because demographics aren't monoliths. White people are not a collective, any more than any other group.
It's a false equivelance, one has statistics to back up the claim the other was pulled out of thin air. 58% of white voters across all demographics, 67% of whites without a college degree and 53% of males across all demographics voted for Trump (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/election-exit-polls.html?_r=0) if gang membership is anything to go by black men aren't even the largest group in gangs. (https://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/Survey-Analysis/Demographics) Not that this is topical as your other claim is just a strawman.White men, and particularly uneducated white men, as a group, are responsible for Trump's election (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/behind-trumps-victory-divisions-by-race-gender-education/). Sorry you don't like statistics, but your fee fees do not invalidate facts.
Why should we assign collective guilt to white men? Let's change a few words:QuoteBlack men, and particularly uneducated black men, as a group, are responsible for gang violence. Sorry you don't like statistics, but your fee fees do not invalidate facts.
And suddenly, it looks like it was posted by an r/coontown refugee.
White men, and particularly uneducated white men, as a group, are responsible for Trump's election (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/behind-trumps-victory-divisions-by-race-gender-education/). Sorry you don't like statistics, but your fee fees do not invalidate facts.
Why should we assign collective guilt to white men? Let's change a few words:QuoteBlack men, and particularly uneducated black men, as a group, are responsible for gang violence. Sorry you don't like statistics, but your fee fees do not invalidate facts.
And suddenly, it looks like it was posted by an r/coontown refugee.
There are millions of white Americans who didn't vote for Trump. Do they deserve to be blamed for his election? No, because demographics aren't monoliths. White people are not a collective, any more than any other group.
What is more, can have multiple conversations and values regarding white privilege and economic equality: it is a false dichotomy that we mush choose between one or the other (https://medium.com/@marcushjohnson/we-should-call-brocialism-what-it-is-white-populism-ad257608ed52#.uupyjqe62) that is insidiously pushed to silence civil rights (https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/800/1*sqjUycQpVrWo6k_kH0awsA.jpeg). You don't have to be an ally, and you can continue to talk about economics all you want.
There's nothing wrong with talking about systematic inequality in addition to economics issues. People can be concerned about multiple issues at the same time. My problem is with saying that white people automatically have it better. In 2013, most poor people in the United States were white (http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/acsbr11-17.pdf). How do you think a laid off factory worker with a dead wife, three kids to feed, and a bum leg is going to take being lectured about his "white male privilege"?
Further, by focusing on identity politics and Govenor McPotty's trans-bathroom bill, Democrats won a meaningful race in North Carolina: (http://www.vox.com/2016/12/13/13936226/samantha-bee-identity-politics-democrats) it is not our way back, it is our way forward in changing times where racial minorities and LGBTQ people continue to make up a larger cross-section of society, particularly as prominent republicans continue to go full racist shitbag. But, as I posted earlier, reminding white people that they will make up less than 50% of this country in 2042 scares them and makes them more likely to vote for the Donald.
Not all white people, as the study's abstract admits:QuoteAmong Whites low in ethnic identification, in contrast, the racial shift condition had no effect on group status threat or support for anti-immigrant policies, but did cause decreased positivity toward Trump and decreased opposition to political correctness. Group status threat did not mediate these effects.
Your study proves that whites who place a premium on their whiteness are more likely to be afraid of being outnumbered. It doesn't prove that white Americans are an army of Archie Bunkers.
And I've already posted above how measurements of racial insensitivity correlated with, in a statistically significant way, one's willingness to vote for Trump, as well as an academic article explaining the cause and effect there.
Wasn't that poll taken before Trump won the primaries?
If it is and Queen is saying she hates men, whites and non college graduates for being who they are she's free to contradict me on this point.
Hell no! I was saying that people can (mis)use the term "Cultural Marxism" without being loony Jew-haters. Maybe they're academics talking about the history of sociology, or maybe they're geeks angry at the aggressive, heavy-handed "criticism" of their hobbies. Either way, that doesn't make them alt-right deplorables.
Okay Paragon I'm curious. Name me one example of someone nowadays who calls people "cultural marxists" and isn't a loony Jew hater, or willing accomplice of loony Jew-haters.
There's nobody named Paragon here.
Dude I know it's you okay. You're using the same talking points almost word for word. You should have at least tried to throw people off your sent by saying things you wouldn't have as Paragon, like I dunno, pretend you're in love with Zoe Quinn or something.
But nice dodge, you avoided the question. Again can you show me anyone outside the alt-right gasthekikesracewarnow crowd who uses the term Cultural Marxist unironically?
QuoteWhy should we assign collective guilt to white men? Let's change a few words:QuoteBlack men, and particularly uneducated black men, as a group, are responsible for gang violence. Sorry you don't like statistics, but your fee fees do not invalidate facts.
And suddenly, it looks like it was posted by an r/coontown refugee.
There are millions of white Americans who didn't vote for Trump. Do they deserve to be blamed for his election? No, because demographics aren't monoliths. White people are not a collective, any more than any other group.
(http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17owbiibrj1i2jpg/original.jpg)
Nobody is saying that white men who didn't vote for Trump are to blame. The fact remains that the majority did and that racism was a major factor.
White men, and particularly uneducated white men, as a group, are responsible for Trump's election (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/behind-trumps-victory-divisions-by-race-gender-education/). Sorry you don't like statistics, but your fee fees do not invalidate facts.
Why should we assign collective guilt to white men? Let's change a few words:QuoteBlack men, and particularly uneducated black men, as a group, are responsible for gang violence. Sorry you don't like statistics, but your fee fees do not invalidate facts.
And suddenly, it looks like it was posted by an r/coontown refugee.
There are millions of white Americans who didn't vote for Trump. Do they deserve to be blamed for his election? No, because demographics aren't monoliths. White people are not a collective, any more than any other group.
No you're just intentionally being dense to misinterpret what I am saying. I said, as a group. As in, as a group, white men skewed Trump, and if they did not skew for Trump to such a degree, he wouldn't be president. That is not to say all white men, because as I said, statistics (and the website I linked to used percentages instead of blanket statements). This is why we already know you're paragon.
What is more, can have multiple conversations and values regarding white privilege and economic equality: it is a false dichotomy that we mush choose between one or the other (https://medium.com/@marcushjohnson/we-should-call-brocialism-what-it-is-white-populism-ad257608ed52#.uupyjqe62) that is insidiously pushed to silence civil rights (https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/800/1*sqjUycQpVrWo6k_kH0awsA.jpeg). You don't have to be an ally, and you can continue to talk about economics all you want.
There's nothing wrong with talking about systematic inequality in addition to economics issues. People can be concerned about multiple issues at the same time. My problem is with saying that white people automatically have it better. In 2013, most poor people in the United States were white (http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/acsbr11-17.pdf). How do you think a laid off factory worker with a dead wife, three kids to feed, and a bum leg is going to take being lectured about his "white male privilege"?
Shut up Paragon and read your links. You focus on raw numbers, but your link states that poverty rates among the general population is 14.3%, whites (non-hispanic) have a poverty rate of 9.9%, and blacks have a poverty rate of 25.8%. And to put a point on this, while we cannot say for certain that a random white person has it better than a random black person, we can say that--in the aggregate--that white people do have it better (based on the fact that only 1/10, and not 1/4 of them, live in poverty). These statistics that you provided us prove that.
Further, by focusing on identity politics and Govenor McPotty's trans-bathroom bill, Democrats won a meaningful race in North Carolina: (http://www.vox.com/2016/12/13/13936226/samantha-bee-identity-politics-democrats) it is not our way back, it is our way forward in changing times where racial minorities and LGBTQ people continue to make up a larger cross-section of society, particularly as prominent republicans continue to go full racist shitbag. But, as I posted earlier, reminding white people that they will make up less than 50% of this country in 2042 scares them and makes them more likely to vote for the Donald.
Not all white people, as the study's abstract admits:QuoteAmong Whites low in ethnic identification, in contrast, the racial shift condition had no effect on group status threat or support for anti-immigrant policies, but did cause decreased positivity toward Trump and decreased opposition to political correctness. Group status threat did not mediate these effects.
Your study proves that whites who place a premium on their whiteness are more likely to be afraid of being outnumbered. It doesn't prove that white Americans are an army of Archie Bunkers.
Thank you for explaining that nuance, but it doesn't undercut my previous point.... We are not talking about those who did not support Trump, but those who did support Trump. So, whether this made some white people less likely to vote for Trump is irrelevant because the crux of the study is to show that race and racial fears played a role for many Trump voters.
And I've already posted above how measurements of racial insensitivity correlated with, in a statistically significant way, one's willingness to vote for Trump, as well as an academic article explaining the cause and effect there.
Wasn't that poll taken before Trump won the primaries?
Nope, October 25-31, 2016 (http://people.umass.edu/schaffne/schaffner_et_al_IDC_conference.pdf). Otherwise known as 5 months after the last competitive Republican Primary.
Maybe she didn't, but that's what it sounded like to me. I just really don't like statements implying collective responsibility. Can I tell you why?
"If Muslims have to take responsibility for every member of their community, so do we!"
Samantha Bee
Now for your second question. I'm talking about people emphasizing "white privilege" and "male privilege" at a time when income inequality is at its worst in decades. I'm talking about student radicals trying to get "dead white men" removed from their classes. I'm talking about SJWs bullying people for the stupidest of reasons. I'm talking about pearl-clutching nitwits trying to play the role of the fiction police. To sum up, I'm talking about a disturbing undercurrent in the American Left in recent years, one that has resulted in the Democratic Party falling to its lowest point since Reconstruction. What I'm saying is that when you find yourself in a hole, it may be a good idea to stop digging.
Maybe she didn't, but that's what it sounded like to me. I just really don't like statements implying collective responsibility. Can I tell you why?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1SaD-gSZO4Quote"If Muslims have to take responsibility for every member of their community, so do we!"
Samantha Bee
Now for your second question. I'm talking about people emphasizing "white privilege" and "male privilege" at a time when income inequality is at its worst in decades. I'm talking about student radicals trying to get "dead white men" removed from their classes. I'm talking about SJWs bullying people for the stupidest of reasons. I'm talking about pearl-clutching nitwits trying to play the role of the fiction police. To sum up, I'm talking about a disturbing undercurrent in the American Left in recent years, one that has resulted in the Democratic Party falling to its lowest point since Reconstruction. What I'm saying is that when you find yourself in a hole, it may be a good idea to stop digging.
And how do you define "bullying" and "stupid reasons"?
And what kind of behaviour, in your eyes, constitutes "trying to play the role of the fiction police"?
And how do you personally define an "SJW" (and, possibly to pre-empt you, "extremism" in the context of the social left)? These terms have been used as dogwhistles for any vehement and insufficiently submissive leftist sentiment or critical sociological analysis of fiction and its impact, so you'll understand if I'm raising an eyebrow at the terminology when it's unelaborated on. (And, actually, now that I'm on the subject, I still hold to the belief that neither Hindus disliking their religion's holy chants to be performed as entertainment by non-Hindus nor expanding already-extant codes of conduct on campus to include "don't be bigoted" count as "political correctness gone mad" in and of themselves.)
Furthermore, pretty much none of this has any relevance to Trump's presidency. Unless I'm incorrect, Trump's campaign devoted exactly zero time to any particular male positivity or explicit affirming message to whites specifically (and no, that doesn't mean he's not racist), and I'll bet my testicles it didn't touch on current trends in art critique. If someone's response to being told white privilege exists is to flock a guy whose mission statement contains "Mexican immigrants are drug dealers and rapists", then it's fair to assume they already heard the siren call of racialist ideology.
And I maintain that calling Trump supporters racist isn't unreasonable. Sure, not every single person who voted for Trump did it out of racist feelings, but as you and others seem to have espoused, feelings don't particularly matter. Endeavouring to put an openly virulent bigot into office continues to be an inherently racist act regardless of one's internal feelings about it, because you can't just slice Donald Trump into pieces and put the ones you personally like into office. That's not how voting works. When you put in the Trump you think will create jobs despite his several bankruptcies, you also put in the Trump who called Mexican immigrants drug dealers and rapists live and wanted to register and round up Muslims. Voters don't magically take on the character flaws of the candidates they support, but if you give matches to the KKK so they can burn crosses, you don't magically become uncomplicit in racist terrorism just because you were doing to be a good neighbour or whatever.
But at a time when the bar for intolerance is constantly being lowered, I'd say people have every right to be nervous about being crushed under the wheels of "social justice".
Maybe she didn't, but that's what it sounded like to me. I just really don't like statements implying collective responsibility. Can I tell you why?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1SaD-gSZO4Quote"If Muslims have to take responsibility for every member of their community, so do we!"
Samantha Bee
Nice rebuttal. Too bad I never said anything remotely like that about Muslims.
To me, "fiction policing" is more than just criticism and analysis. It's criticizing fiction one finds problematic in a disproportionately harsh way.Criticism should not be disproportionately harsh? I'm sorry Mr Uwe Boll, your film was kind of, somewhat not good and Mr M. Night" Shyamalan your plots could possibly be seen by some as not making sense, but only in certain areas mind you.
There are multiple kinds of SJWs, but I think a good general definition is somebody who claims to be "fighting the good fight" on behalf of women and/or minorities, but ends up doing more harm than good out of extremism and/or hypocrisy. I'd go on, but I think this article sums it up better than I ever could.
As a side note, there's nothing inherently wrong with rules against bigotry. But at a time when the bar for intolerance is constantly being lowered, I'd say people have every right to be nervous about being crushed under the wheels of "social justice".
Maybe she didn't, but that's what it sounded like to me. I just really don't like statements implying collective responsibility. Can I tell you why?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1SaD-gSZO4Quote"If Muslims have to take responsibility for every member of their community, so do we!"
Samantha Bee
Nice rebuttal. Too bad I never said anything remotely like that about Muslims.
I fear the point was missed here. No less a personage than Barack Obama has asked Muslims to take responsibility for their worst members (http://mondoweiss.net/2014/09/responsibility-responsible-violence/). Black people are frequently (http://ijr.com/2014/11/209189-4-take-personal-responsi-damnbility-one-mans-straight-talk-black-community-goes-viral/) tasked (https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/4gmeoo/cmv_black_people_need_to_begin_accepting_their/) with (http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/its-time-for-black-america-to-blame-black-america/) taking (http://downtrend.com/71superb/black-pastor-tells-blacks-to-stop-blaming-whites-for-all-of-their-problems)responsibility for the worst members of their community and I don't hear you complaining. I believe Sam was just saying, you know - what's good for the goose...
To me, "fiction policing" is more than just criticism and analysis. It's criticizing fiction one finds problematic in a disproportionately harsh way.Criticism should not be disproportionately harsh? I'm sorry Mr Uwe Boll, your film was kind of, somewhat not good and Mr M. Night" Shyamalan your plots could possibly be seen by some as not making sense, but only in certain areas mind you.
There are multiple kinds of SJWs, but I think a good general definition is somebody who claims to be "fighting the good fight" on behalf of women and/or minorities, but ends up doing more harm than good out of extremism and/or hypocrisy. I'd go on, but I think this article sums it up better than I ever could.
Trouble is, much like "cultural Marxism" in common usage it's come to mean something different. Now it's just a lazy way of saying do-gooder who gives a crap about other people.
Are you sure that's not the result of people trying to "reclaim" the term? That's not to say there aren't people abusing the term (I've seen it applied to some of DSP's critics), but when you have people like Laurie Penny saying that being a "social justice warrior" is something to be proud of, it's hard to say the dilution of the phrase rests entirely on their shoulders.Yeah, I'm (https://www.reddit.com/r/BestOfOutrageCulture/comments/5ogdnt/theyre_going_to_bring_cameras_so_this_should_be/) sure (https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/3vez1u/what_is_the_proper_use_of_the_term_sjw/).
The key word is "problematic". There's a big difference between IHE losing his temper at The Amazing Bulk for being a horrible excuse for a movie and religious fanatics claiming that DnD leads teenagers to the Devil. One is an understandable, human response to watching a lazy, incomprehensible mess that's only a movie by dictionary definition. The other is a load of hysterical nonsense.Not everyone using the word "problematic" is calling for stuff to be banned. Yes Jack Thompson and BADD (Bothered About Dungeons and Dragons) did want to ban stuff, but I don't think they ever used the word "problematic".
Are you sure that's not the result of people trying to "reclaim" the term? That's not to say there aren't people abusing the term (I've seen it applied to some of DSP's critics), but when you have people like Laurie Penny saying that being a "social justice warrior" is something to be proud of, it's hard to say the dilution of the phrase rests entirely on their shoulders.Yeah, I'm (https://www.reddit.com/r/BestOfOutrageCulture/comments/5ogdnt/theyre_going_to_bring_cameras_so_this_should_be/) sure (https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/3vez1u/what_is_the_proper_use_of_the_term_sjw/).
Also, I know-not all white people yadda yadda. It's still a fact that mostly white people elected Trump (http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/9/13571676/trump-win-racism-power) and over 40% of those white people are racist as balls (http://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/rngs/USA-ELECTION-RACE/010020H7174/USA-ELECTION-RACE.jpg). Those are factual statements, not a plot to make white people feel bad man.
The key word is "problematic". There's a big difference between IHE losing his temper at The Amazing Bulk for being a horrible excuse for a movie and religious fanatics claiming that DnD leads teenagers to the Devil. One is an understandable, human response to watching a lazy, incomprehensible mess that's only a movie by dictionary definition. The other is a load of hysterical nonsense.Not everyone using the word "problematic" is calling for stuff to be banned. Yes Jack Thompson and BADD (Bothered About Dungeons and Dragons) did want to ban stuff, but I don't think they ever used the word "problematic".
I wouldn't have a problem with it. But then people go overboard and start assigning collective guilt to white America, or saying that all Trump voters are racists, and then the fecal matter hits the rotary impeller. feel bad man.
I'd like to point out that saying Trump's supporters are racist is unfair. Voters don't magically take on their candidate's character flaws.They just give them their blessing.
They show folks using SJW are bottom feeding reptiles who probably didn't start tossing it about because someone tried to "reclaim" the term unironically. Frankly it proves as much as your assertion that it might have been SJWs trying to reclaim SJWness by taking the acronym back.
I wouldn't have a problem with it. But then people go overboard and start assigning collective guilt to white America, or saying that all Trump voters are racists, and then the fecal matter hits the rotary impeller. feel bad man.
Well that's a change of tune, see I distinctly recall you saying that calling them racist at all was unfair.I'd like to point out that saying Trump's supporters are racist is unfair. Voters don't magically take on their candidate's character flaws.They just give them their blessing.
America has voted already, well-at least the electoral college has voted in it's stead. Trump supporters are likely to get just as pissed at a nuanced statement saying that a percentage of them are racist as a flat out statement calling them all racist. After all, Hillary's "deplorables" comment made clear that she wasn't talking about every single Trump supporter or calling them all racist and look how that went over. We can discuss it or not, it's relevant to the topic but there's no point on holding back because you might piss off a Trump supporter.
Has anyone here actually made the claim that every single Trump supporter is racist?
Grand, good. Glad we all agree.Has anyone here actually made the claim that every single Trump supporter is racist?
I don't think so. The point has been that after everything Trump has said and his team has done everyone who voted him has lost any excuse to claim that they didn't know that Trump's administration is going to be racist and because of that they were complicit in helping racists rise to power.
Someone in particular mentioned that they will now refer to Trump voters as supporting racism because that is what they did even if they just said that they liked his hair or business expertise or whatever.
“Hahahahaha, I was just asked by a booking agent if I would consider djing at one of the inaugural balls for #trump ... Hahahahaha, wait, Hahahaha, really? I guess I’d DJ at an inaugural ball if as payment #trump released his tax returns. Also I would probably play public enemy and Stockhausen remixes to entertain the republicans. I’m still laughing. Hahahaha. So #trump what do you think, I DJ for you and you release your tax returns?”
Has anyone here actually made the claim that every single Trump supporter is racist?
And I maintain that calling Trump supporters racist isn't unreasonable. Sure, not every single person who voted for Trump did it out of racist feelings, but as you and others seem to have espoused, feelings don't particularly matter. Endeavouring to put an openly virulent bigot into office continues to be an inherently racist act regardless of one's internal feelings about it, because you can't just slice Donald Trump into pieces and put the ones you personally like into office.
Also-the ultimate responsibility for the perversion of the term SJW rests on the same people who "perverted" your venerable academic term "Cultural Marxism". Take it up with them.
Social justice extremism: reclaiming an insult used towards people for being highly socially leftist as a positive term. Verily she wants to instate a leftist tyranny where cishets are put to the sword. And surely "shaming critics" is the only reason anyone could have for reclaiming an insultive term, which is why people who self-identify as "queer" are doing it just to oppress the heteros. /s
Seriously though, your premise of "people who want to reclaim SJW are the real reason SJW is so misused" is easily rejectable because 1) you base it on one (1) person allegedly reclaiming "social justice warrior" to "make the critics look bad" 2) you don't even give a proper source of this heinous act of cisheterophobic propaganda. I googled "Laurie Penny SJW" and only got sources like Ralph Retort and Roosh V's website, which 1) are biased to the extreme 2) I will not be dignifying with traffic.
But this isn't about that, my mistake. This is about how calling supporters of racists being president racist people, because they do actively racist things, apparently became an unreasonable thing to say at some point? Because something something Trump did marginally better with latinos than some other cockhole?
I'm a very empirical person, so I generally don't trust such claims unless I have hard evidence.
I'm a very empirical person, so I generally don't trust such claims unless I have hard evidence.
Remember that time I posted statistics and you were all "well, white people and fee fees." Yeah, I don't even need to call up Maury to tell that this quote is a lie.
Oh FFS of course some people unironically call themselves Social Justice Warrior, because it's unique among insults in that it combines three awesome things into an awesome-voltron. Combining the sheer over the top-ness with bitter fuck-you snark is what makes the insult work. Reclaiming it is simply boomeranging that snark in the other direction. That doesn't make Lurie Penny responsible for the terms popularity. It was a popular diss that she was reacting to, not the other way around.
Also, in my country we call Pauline Hanson's voters responsible for racism because even if you are the one token Asian that she apeared in the photo op with you'd have to be Blind Freddy not to know she's racist as fuck. Trump is like Hanson on crack and anybody alive on the planet not locked in a cell in supermax or in a coma since maybe the 1980s knows this!
But Lana I digress, because we all have in this very thread. Can we maybe start a new one to discuss this semantic argument about the origins of SJW-ness and cultural Marxism? Because here, now un this thread it's just an annoying derail.
Can we get back to Donald fucking Trump please?
So long as Pence goes with him. Trump will be bad, but Pence is demonstrably worse.
The difference between Trump and Pence is that while Pence is horrible, he at least would have some respect for the traditions and conventions of government. Trump doesn't.For Trump it's all about his ego, an impeachment-or for that matter an electoral loss is something he would perceive as an attack on his character and therefore his ego.
I think it was Queen who mentioned that she doesn't trust that Trump would hand over power peacefully if he loses in 2020 or once he can't run again in 2024. Pence, I think, would.
(Of course, that raises the question of whether Trump would go peaceably if he were impeached.)
The difference between Trump and Pence is that while Pence is horrible, he at least would have some respect for the traditions and conventions of government. Trump doesn't.For Trump it's all about his ego, an impeachment-or for that matter an electoral loss is something he would perceive as an attack on his character and therefore his ego.
I think it was Queen who mentioned that she doesn't trust that Trump would hand over power peacefully if he loses in 2020 or once he can't run again in 2024. Pence, I think, would.
(Of course, that raises the question of whether Trump would go peaceably if he were impeached.)
We all know already he wouldn't have accepted this elections outcome unless he had won, we also know he answers each and every attack on his character with petty rage. That's your answer.
Note to Lana, this is not saying that every single member of the GOP is a racist 'kay*-nor every member of the inauguration committee nor every on the fence voter we've never met. Their feels are safe with me.
*Steve over there in the corner is alright, he's a Rand acolyte. He just wants to kill the poor regardless of race, creed or colour.
Woooooooooooooooow. Kayne West.You can be fuckin' president elect and do that.
Ironbite-well makes sense. He is in the middle of a mental breakdown.
http://usuncut.com/news/republicans-kill-protesters/
Protest while you still can. After this law passes the authorities are allowed to shoot any groups of 10 or more people if theyhave the wrong skin colourare blocking the road or sidewalk.
http://usuncut.com/news/republicans-kill-protesters/
Protest while you still can. After this law passes the authorities are allowed to shoot any groups of 10 or more people if theyhave the wrong skin colourare blocking the road or sidewalk.
One, laughably unconstitutional. Two, if it happens...well, you can't act surprised when they start shooting back, or devolving into a riot more readily.
I've heard that Trump's team is blaming the weather for shit turnout. Because apparently 58 degrees and light rain is a much bigger obstacle than the below freezing temperatures Obama had.
I should also point out that the (early) estimates are between 10,000 and 250,000. For perspective, Obama's 2013 inauguration had over a million people, while his 2009 inauguration reached over 1.8 million people.
I'm not surprised, since you have to dig for his approval ratings (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/315223-poll-trump-approval-rating-hits-new-low-hours-before).
Say, is it possible to recall a POTUS?
I'm not surprised, since you have to dig for his approval ratings (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/315223-poll-trump-approval-rating-hits-new-low-hours-before).
Say, is it possible to recall a POTUS?
It's called impeachment. I know he'll do something impeachable in these next four years, hell his refusal to divest raises the emoluments issue and it's literally day one. Not to mention his complete disdain for rules and norms. But the GOP will never impeach him, even if it does come out that he was working with Putin and peeing on Russian prostitutes.
I'm not surprised, since you have to dig for his approval ratings (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/315223-poll-trump-approval-rating-hits-new-low-hours-before).
Say, is it possible to recall a POTUS?
It's called impeachment. I know he'll do something impeachable in these next four years, hell his refusal to divest raises the emoluments issue and it's literally day one. Not to mention his complete disdain for rules and norms. But the GOP will never impeach him, even if it does come out that he was working with Putin and peeing on Russian prostitutes.
I'm not surprised, since you have to dig for his approval ratings (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/315223-poll-trump-approval-rating-hits-new-low-hours-before).
Say, is it possible to recall a POTUS?
It's called impeachment. I know he'll do something impeachable in these next four years, hell his refusal to divest raises the emoluments issue and it's literally day one. Not to mention his complete disdain for rules and norms. But the GOP will never impeach him, even if it does come out that he was working with Putin and peeing on Russian prostitutes.
But can the voters call an election and boot him out?
I'm not surprised, since you have to dig for his approval ratings (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/315223-poll-trump-approval-rating-hits-new-low-hours-before).
Say, is it possible to recall a POTUS?
It's called impeachment. I know he'll do something impeachable in these next four years, hell his refusal to divest raises the emoluments issue and it's literally day one. Not to mention his complete disdain for rules and norms. But the GOP will never impeach him, even if it does come out that he was working with Putin and peeing on Russian prostitutes.
But can the voters call an election and boot him out?
No.
I'm not surprised, since you have to dig for his approval ratings (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/315223-poll-trump-approval-rating-hits-new-low-hours-before).
Say, is it possible to recall a POTUS?
It's called impeachment. I know he'll do something impeachable in these next four years, hell his refusal to divest raises the emoluments issue and it's literally day one. Not to mention his complete disdain for rules and norms. But the GOP will never impeach him, even if it does come out that he was working with Putin and peeing on Russian prostitutes.
But can the voters call an election and boot him out?
No.
Yeah, that whole "democracy" thing? Basically a facade.
What are the odds of him ragequitting?
GOP will impeach him sooner just to score points with the electorate and not get squished in the mid-terms.Not before the damage is done.
Donald Trump's approval rating according to a recent Quinnipiac poll: 37%.I thought we learned from the election itself that the polls are just flat out wrong.
George W. Bush's approval rating after Hurricane Katrina: 43%.
Donald Trump's approval rating according to a recent Quinnipiac poll: 37%.I thought we learned from the election itself that the polls are just flat out wrong.
George W. Bush's approval rating after Hurricane Katrina: 43%.
Trump claims he had a million and a half people at his inauguration in a petty attempt to discredit a protest drawing at least two times the crowd he had. This is, quite obviously, a bold faced lie.Uh huh. (http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/20/politics/donald-trump-barack-obama-inauguration-crowd-size/)
Reich asked his friend what the GOP will do now that Trump is president.
“They’ll play along for a while,” the unidentified friend said. “They’ll get as much as they want – tax cuts galore, deregulation, military buildup, slash all those poverty programs, and then get to work on Social Security and Medicare – and blame him. And he’s such a fool he’ll want to take credit for everything.”
Asked what happens then, the Reich’s friend laughed and said, ‘They like [Vice President] Pence.” “Pence is their guy. They all think Trump is out of his mind,” he explained. “So the moment Trump does something really dumb – steps over the line – violates the law in a big stupid clumsy way … and you know he will …”
“They impeach him?” Reich asked. “You bet. They pull the trigger,” was the reply (http://www.rawstory.com/2017/01/theyll-pull-the-trigger-robert-reich-explains-how-the-gop-is-playing-trump-till-they-can-dump-him/)
I don't get it. Why would they gut everything and then blame trump for it? Shouldn't they be proud of all the bullshit they're going to do? It's like they know what they want to do will be extremely unpopular with the American people. So they need to put it on a fall guy.
I don't get it. Why would they gut everything and then blame trump for it? Shouldn't they be proud of all the bullshit they're going to do? It's like they know what they want to do will be extremely unpopular with the American people. So they need to put it on a fall guy.This is why. (http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/koch-brothers-are-smiling-white-house-will-be-packed-some-their-most-loyal-servants)
I'm betting on eight years of Trump. The polls are worse than useless, and it's become cool to hate the law. Getting impeached will just make him more popular, though it might not get to the point where the people overthrow the government if they impeach Trump
more people went to dashcon than the amount of people who went to trump’s inauguration
I'm betting on eight years of Trump. The polls are worse than useless, and it's become cool to hate the law. Getting impeached will just make him more popular, though it might not get to the point where the people overthrow the government if they impeach Trump
The Trump administration just killed the TPP:
http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Trump-and-Team-Officially-Withdraw-From-TPP-20170122-0002.html (http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Trump-and-Team-Officially-Withdraw-From-TPP-20170122-0002.html)
To be honest, I'm surprised the first citrus-American POTUS actually kept a campaign promise.
" Trump regurgitated parts of his stump speech about how the United States “should have kept the oil” after invading Iraq. “Maybe we’ll have another chance,”
The Trump administration just killed the TPP:
http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Trump-and-Team-Officially-Withdraw-From-TPP-20170122-0002.html (http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Trump-and-Team-Officially-Withdraw-From-TPP-20170122-0002.html)
To be honest, I'm surprised the first citrus-American POTUS actually kept a campaign promise.
Just wait, before the midterms he'll rejoin it (after a few minor provisions have been tweaked and it's been renamed the "Trump-Pacific Partnership") and he'll say that it's the greatest trade deal, believe me, it's tremendous, it'll get all our jobs back, big league, and Mexico agreed to pay for the wall, a yuge wall, a beautiful wall, as part of it.
The Trump administration just killed the TPP:
http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Trump-and-Team-Officially-Withdraw-From-TPP-20170122-0002.html (http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Trump-and-Team-Officially-Withdraw-From-TPP-20170122-0002.html)
To be honest, I'm surprised the first citrus-American POTUS actually kept a campaign promise.
Just wait, before the midterms he'll rejoin it (after a few minor provisions have been tweaked and it's been renamed the "Trump-Pacific Partnership") and he'll say that it's the greatest trade deal, believe me, it's tremendous, it'll get all our jobs back, big league, and Mexico agreed to pay for the wall, a yuge wall, a beautiful wall, as part of it.
I doubt Trump will bring this back, while he flipped flopped on this issue, and every other that doesn't center around his giant hands/penis, his actions are taking us down the protectionist route... And China is laughing so hard at us right now. With America backing out, now they are the dominant economy to bring countries to the table and create free trade deals, deals which China--and not the United States--gets to write. Fact is, the TPP was drafted to circumvent China's currency manipulation and increase American influence in South Asian nations. That is why China is not a signatory.
And then with Canada and Mexico... I guess the only silver lining is that a trade war is better than an actual war. But then Tol posted, so fuck.
More than 200 people who were mass-arrested at the Washington, D.C. protests against the inauguration of Donald Trump have been hit with felony riot charges that are punishable by up to 10 years in prison and quarter-million-dollar fine. Those picked up in the sweep—including legal observers and journalists—had their phones, cameras and other personal belongings confiscated as evidence, a lawyer confirmed to AlterNet.
Speaking of repression. (http://www.alternet.org/trumps-america-felony-riot-charges-against-inauguration-protesters-signal-dangerous-wave-repression)QuoteMore than 200 people who were mass-arrested at the Washington, D.C. protests against the inauguration of Donald Trump have been hit with felony riot charges that are punishable by up to 10 years in prison and quarter-million-dollar fine. Those picked up in the sweep—including legal observers and journalists—had their phones, cameras and other personal belongings confiscated as evidence, a lawyer confirmed to AlterNet.
How could you tell if they did property damage in DC? Seriously, how do you tell? The place is a shithole.
How could you tell if they did property damage in DC? Seriously, how do you tell? The place is a shithole.
Still better than Miami.
How could you tell if they did property damage in DC? Seriously, how do you tell? The place is a shithole.
Still better than Miami.
All of which are several orders of magnitude better than Mogadishu.
How could you tell if they did property damage in DC? Seriously, how do you tell? The place is a shithole.
Still better than Miami.
All of which are several orders of magnitude better than Mogadishu.
And even that is better than the arid wasteland that is Topeka.
HAVE YOU EVEN SEEN HOW HOT IT IS THERE!?
Oh wow...
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/193
USA is leaving UN if this passes.
Oh wow...
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/193
USA is leaving UN if this passes.
So, basically, the Republican Party has metamorphosed into the Pigmask Army, and Trump is basically a seventy year old Porky Minch.
It fits; wanting to cause the apocalypse, no regard for anyone but themselves, corrupting people into giving them more power...
Hilariously, down under our own conservative government is futilely begging Trump to keep the TPP (http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/transpacific-partnership-dead-before-trump-even-takes-office-20161113-gso9kn.html) while the opposition asks why they're even bothering. (http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/01/21/govt-must-look-tpp-alternatives-alp)
Oh wow...
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/193
USA is leaving UN if this passes.
Apparently, this bill has been proposed at every Congress session for the past 20 years, but never even made it past the committee. I'm pretty sure leaving the UN was not part of the Republicans' platform, and neither did Trump campaign for it.
Not saying that it can't eventually happen if They the People drag their own asses into an impossible situation, but the timing of this proposal is basically irrelevant to how it might eventually come to happen.So, basically, the Republican Party has metamorphosed into the Pigmask Army, and Trump is basically a seventy year old Porky Minch.
It fits; wanting to cause the apocalypse, no regard for anyone but themselves, corrupting people into giving them more power...
Dear Leader is a narcissistic yet unbelievably insecure, elderly manchild who loves naming things after himself. Accordingly, his seat of power is on top of a massive tower that bears his name. He wants the entire world to love him, admire him, practically worship him, and will seek to punish anyone who doesn't. He seized power by exploiting people's complacency, ignorance and apathy, but to him it was all just a game. He embodies the decay of modern Western society, of capitalism, of our concept of freedom ; even beyond that, he represents the timeless human vices that all those troubles stem from, the reasons there was never a time or place where "society", capitalism or freedom were ever truly "done right".
So for the sake of giving the finger to Barack Obama's signature legislative achievement (which, as I have said so many times, is what the Republicans had been proposing for decades) and giving a massive tax cut to the 400 richest families in the US, the Republican Party is willing to kill well over forty thousand people per year.Hell, they've been more than prepared to kill foreign lives for politics. So have the blue dogs. Not just foreign lives, how many are unnecessarily killed because of "tough on crime" policing or the war on drugs?
Republicans voting against: Rand Paul (R-KY)."Opposition"? Surely you jest!
Democrats voting for: Joe Donnelly (D-IN), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Maggie Hassan (D-NH), Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Joe Manchin (D-WV), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Jack Reed (D-RI), Brian Schatz (D-HI), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Mark Warner (D-VA), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI).
Angus King (I-ME), who caucuses with the Democrats, voted in favour of confirming Rep. Pompeo. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who also caucuses with the Democrats, voted against confirming Rep. Pompeo. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Chris Murphy (D-CT) did not vote.
Republicans voting against: Rand Paul (R-KY)."Opposition"? Surely you jest!
Democrats voting for: Joe Donnelly (D-IN), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Maggie Hassan (D-NH), Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Joe Manchin (D-WV), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Jack Reed (D-RI), Brian Schatz (D-HI), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Mark Warner (D-VA), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI).
Angus King (I-ME), who caucuses with the Democrats, voted in favour of confirming Rep. Pompeo. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who also caucuses with the Democrats, voted against confirming Rep. Pompeo. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Chris Murphy (D-CT) did not vote.
The new test of loyalty will apparently be celebrating Trump's Inauguration Day (http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2017/01/23/national-day-of-patriotic-devotion-for-what/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+freethoughtblogs%2Fpharyngula+%28FTB%3A+Pharyngula%29) as a National Day of Patriotic Devotion (https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/01/24/2017-01798/national-day-of-patriotic-devotion).Republicans voting against: Rand Paul (R-KY)."Opposition"? Surely you jest!
Democrats voting for: Joe Donnelly (D-IN), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Maggie Hassan (D-NH), Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Joe Manchin (D-WV), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Jack Reed (D-RI), Brian Schatz (D-HI), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Mark Warner (D-VA), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI).
Angus King (I-ME), who caucuses with the Democrats, voted in favour of confirming Rep. Pompeo. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who also caucuses with the Democrats, voted against confirming Rep. Pompeo. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Chris Murphy (D-CT) did not vote.
They're taking the "Loyal" part of "Loyal Opposition" too literally.
The new test of loyalty will apparently be celebrating Trump's Inauguration Day (http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2017/01/23/national-day-of-patriotic-devotion-for-what/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+freethoughtblogs%2Fpharyngula+%28FTB%3A+Pharyngula%29) as a National Day of Patriotic Devotion (https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/01/24/2017-01798/national-day-of-patriotic-devotion).
If there is a human being in the history of ever with a larger and more fragile ego, let me know.
http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/315963-gop-pans-democrats-1-trillion-infrastructure-package
You know how Trump talked about spending as much as a trillion dollars on infrastructure? Probably one of the things he talked about most, alongside building the wall, getting out of TPP, and renegotiating NAFTA.
Well, the Democrats proposed doing just that.
And the GOP shot it down.
http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/315963-gop-pans-democrats-1-trillion-infrastructure-package
You know how Trump talked about spending as much as a trillion dollars on infrastructure? Probably one of the things he talked about most, alongside building the wall, getting out of TPP, and renegotiating NAFTA.
Well, the Democrats proposed doing just that.
And the GOP shot it down.
I hope they don't do that infrastructure plan. Large infrastructure rebuilding projects should be used in a Keynesian sense. That is, when there is a recession and high unemployment, where the infrastructure project is a means of spending to modernize the economy while allowing the government to spend its way out of said recession. An infrastructure project now, when unemployment is 4.7% pushes us dangerously close to full employment, meaning that inflation is on the horizon. Further, at a time like this, where wages are starting to recover, where unemployment is low, and where the recession is over, it's just a giant money giveaway to large industries that work in machinery and government contractors. While this is true even in times of recession, the creation of jobs and government stimulus make up for this in the long term. However, I don't believe Trump's motive for an infrastructure plan is to help the economy or create jobs, but to stimulate a sector of the economy that he likely owns substantial stock in. I have no evidence for this belief, but come on, it's Donald Trump.
Enrique Peña Nieto cancelled a meeting with Donald Trump and the White House retaliated by suggesting a new 20% tax on imports from its southern neighbour to finance the construction of a border wall.
If these are true I don't think Trump will last 8 years...
(http://images.dailykos.com/images/356840/large/WHL15.jpg?1485420796)
I want to point out, so it's clear, that we have no way of knowing if those tweets are actually true. That said, I choose to believe that they are, in the lack of any evidence to the contrary.
Yeah i love how when the democrats want to spend money fixing things they're all like "No we have to cut spending! " but now that trump is in office they're like "eh well find the money somehow."To be fair, the other side does it too. People seem to be far less critical of the TPP than they once were now that Trump has pulled America out of it.
Yeah i love how when the democrats want to spend money fixing things they're all like "No we have to cut spending! " but now that trump is in office they're like "eh well find the money somehow."To be fair, the other side does it too. People seem to be far less critical of the TPP than they once were now that Trump has pulled America out of it.
Yeah i love how when the democrats want to spend money fixing things they're all like "No we have to cut spending! " but now that trump is in office they're like "eh well find the money somehow."To be fair, the other side does it too. People seem to be far less critical of the TPP than they once were now that Trump has pulled America out of it.
Yeah. For my money that's the one good thing Trump has done so far.
So question, why does Donald Trump lie so constantly, so obviously, about such trivial matters?There's always Henry Kissinger's madman theory.
Is it because:
a) he's just that fragile and stupid?
Or as economist Tyler Cowen argues here http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/26/14386068/why-does-trump-lie
b) out of a deliberate political strategy to test which republicans are loyal enough to him to humiliate themselves in public for him so he can secure his control of the party and depose guys like Paul Ryan?
So question, why does Donald Trump lie so constantly, so obviously, about such trivial matters?
Is it because:
a) he's just that fragile and stupid?
Or as economist Tyler Cowen argues here http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/26/14386068/why-does-trump-lie
b) out of a deliberate political strategy to test which republicans are loyal enough to him to humiliate themselves in public for him so he can secure his control of the party and depose guys like Paul Ryan?
Sure, for a white guy on the outside. For anyone else, its fucking terrifying.
Sure, for a white guy on the outside. For anyone else, its fucking terrifying.
I'm "a white guy on the outside" and I'm fucking terrified at how he's telling the environment to go fuck itself.
I'm a white guy on the inside and we're probably gonna have an ISIS attack on US soil that he'll do nothing about and WHOOPS THERE GOES THE BILL OF FUCKING RIGHTS!
Sure, for a white guy on the outside. For anyone else, its fucking terrifying.
I'm "a white guy on the outside" and I'm fucking terrified at how he's telling the environment to go fuck itself.
That's absolutely fair.
Aren't we all?
Apparently not Conty.
Apparently not Conty.
He's of the same brand as Trump, so that is only logical.
Entertainment-wise my horror scenario was this dude turning into a boring sensible politician who'd just spent the campaign spouting fun-but-implausible things to energise the voter base only to drop them after inauguration day.Yes, the hilarity if you have an Arab name of never being able to go on holiday or visit relatives. I'm sure they see the joke.
But early indicators are looking like he's actually going to DO some of them. This is going to be HILARIOUS.
One of my relatives thinks Trump's likely to stage a military coup, of the US, successfully. She repeatedly compares the US to Rome while doing so, of course.
One of my relatives thinks Trump's likely to stage a military coup, of the US, successfully. She repeatedly compares the US to Rome while doing so, of course.
Totally a trustworthy source and not the demented shrieking of someone who doesn't understand how governments work.
Why? He just wants to bloviate. Bloviating only requires alternative facts, reading real ones is for libtards!One of my relatives thinks Trump's likely to stage a military coup, of the US, successfully. She repeatedly compares the US to Rome while doing so, of course.
Totally a trustworthy source and not the demented shrieking of someone who doesn't understand how governments work.
For someone who claims to be British, you really don't comprehend the English written word very well do you? Pyro is hardly citing his/her relative as a reliable source. The statement is simply the repetition of conjecture. By definition not said to be a reliable source.
For fuck's sake, at least make an attempt at reading. I realise it's hard to focus given your vigorous self abuse but maybe take a breather before typing.
Cernovich is a huge cuck. Mike Cernovich is a massive cuck.
I am alt-right. I have always been alt-right. I have never said I'm not alt-right, unlike Mike and Paul Joseph Watson and Milo and these other cucks.
4Channers, Goobergaters and neo-Nazis can't make a coherent team and they are either fighting over which one of them is the coolest or whether or not they should be closeted Nazis or in full-Nazi mode.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/jihadist-groups-hail-trumps-travel-ban-as-a-victory/2017/01/29/50908986-e66d-11e6-b82f-687d6e6a3e7c_story.html?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_jihadist-groups-635pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.4be33b9564d1
You know who loves the Muslim ban? ISIS.
http://www.rawstory.com/2017/01/trumps-education-secretary-pick-plagiarized-her-senate-questionnaire-responses-report/
Somebody please tell me that Rawstory is one of the Onion-type fake news sites because this is too cliche to be real. The new head of the department of education copied her answers off of net.
“We’re going to war in the South China Sea in five to 10 years,” he said in March 2016. “There’s no doubt about that. They’re taking their sandbars and making basically stationary aircraft carriers and putting missiles on those. They come here to the United States in front of our face – and you understand how important face is – and say it’s an ancient territorial sea.”
A year ago President Bannon said straight out that war with China and War in the Middle East is inevitable in the future.
(https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/02/steve-bannon-donald-trump-war-south-china-sea-no-doubt)Quote“We’re going to war in the South China Sea in five to 10 years,” he said in March 2016. “There’s no doubt about that. They’re taking their sandbars and making basically stationary aircraft carriers and putting missiles on those. They come here to the United States in front of our face – and you understand how important face is – and say it’s an ancient territorial sea.”
Now he's in power while his orange mannequin distracts everybody by pooping all over the world stage. It's a matter of time, fascism needs war or everybody including those in positions of power realizes it's not working. War will come.
The state visit with Teresa May seemed to go well enough. I'm glad to see Sir Winston's bust back on display after Obama summarily removed it from sight (incidentally, he also has a place of honor on the main floor of the Pentagon). I'm hopeful for a US/UK trade deal.
The EO on refugees wasn't unconstitutional or illegal (despite some of the headlines) but the internal comms weren't there and that caused the implementation to be bungled. Unnecessary error, but fixable, and on the whole not really that big a deal.
He made a killer SCOUTS nomination. That means a lot.
Iran is the one starting shit with the Iran situation, not Trump. Remember, he made his bones as a counter-puncher.
On the other side of the ledger, what's with the dust-up with Australia? Not cool.
Also, what's with flirting with the Obama position on Israel? Also not cool.
I missed the speeches, so I won't opine on those.
So on the whole, the week was a mixed bag, but much more to the positive. I'm hoping that Trump and the Australian PM can kiss and make up, but I'll take this over whatever would have come out of President Hillary's office this week, that's for sure.
(And by that standard, he has a lot of latitude and a really low bar).
A year ago President Bannon said straight out that war with China and War in the Middle East is inevitable in the future.
(https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/02/steve-bannon-donald-trump-war-south-china-sea-no-doubt)Quote“We’re going to war in the South China Sea in five to 10 years,” he said in March 2016. “There’s no doubt about that. They’re taking their sandbars and making basically stationary aircraft carriers and putting missiles on those. They come here to the United States in front of our face – and you understand how important face is – and say it’s an ancient territorial sea.”
Now he's in power while his orange mannequin distracts everybody by pooping all over the world stage. It's a matter of time, fascism needs war or everybody including those in positions of power realizes it's not working. War will come.
“Donald Trump wants to remove us from undue federal scrutiny by removing ‘white supremacists’ from the definition of ‘extremism,’” the founder and editor of the neo-Nazi website The Daily Stormer (which takes its name from a Nazi propaganda publication) wrote in a post on the site. “Yes, this is real life. Our memes are all real life. Donald Trump is setting us free.”
Aides confer in the dark because they cannot figure out how to operate the light switches in the cabinet room. Visitors conclude their meetings and then wander around, testing doorknobs until finding one that leads to an exit. In a darkened, mostly empty West Wing, Mr. Trump’s provocative chief strategist, Stephen K. Bannon, finishes another 16-hour day planning new lines of attack.
It'll probably happen sooner rather then later but I want McCain gone now.
Ironbite-man has no spine despite being a "maverick".
OH boy I can't wait for that fight to happen!
Why is that an image? It's all textual content.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yP9Qt-bSz40
In his first fight with the court system, the Orange Piss Pot has taken a massive body blow and has been left reeling. (http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/09/appeals-court-to-issue-decision-on-trump-travel-ban-later-today.html) 9th Circuit upheld the suspension order.
Ironbite-lets see if he lets it die or has Sessions take to the SCOTUS.
In his first fight with the court system, the Orange Piss Pot has taken a massive body blow and has been left reeling. (http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/09/appeals-court-to-issue-decision-on-trump-travel-ban-later-today.html) 9th Circuit upheld the suspension order.
Ironbite-lets see if he lets it die or has Sessions take to the SCOTUS.
The Ninth Circuit is a bunch of liberal losers. They don't know how to win and will not keep us safe. Sad!
SCOTUS will keep us safe when Sessions makes a tremendous argument before them. SCOTUS will make a tremendous ruling. We'll make America safe again!
So what are the odds of the supreme court going against this ban? I think Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsburg, and Breyer will vote against it. But will Kennedy swing to their side, or vote his party line?
So what are the odds of the supreme court going against this ban? I think Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsburg, and Breyer will vote against it. But will Kennedy swing to their side, or vote his party line?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yP9Qt-bSz40
So what are the odds of the supreme court going against this ban? I think Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsburg, and Breyer will vote against it. But will Kennedy swing to their side, or vote his party line?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yP9Qt-bSz40
As it turns out we have one too:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-qP_CIZJus
Oh fuck, look what stupid thing Trump just did today (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ)
Oh fuck, look what stupid thing Trump just did today (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ)
Oh fuck, look what stupid thing Trump just did today (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ)How...how could you do this to me?
The point was that the world is a cruel and merciless cold void devoid of all sympathy and we will all die alone.
In other news, the new secretary of education of USA sure got busy. http://m.seattlepi.com/local/politics/article/A-disability-website-disappears-Murray-10924413.php
...Because if families with disabled children know what rights and resources they have they might actually use them and apparently Devos opposes that kind of stuff.
The point was that the world is a cruel and merciless cold void devoid of all sympathy and we will all die alone.
In other news, the new secretary of education of USA sure got busy. http://m.seattlepi.com/local/politics/article/A-disability-website-disappears-Murray-10924413.php
...Because if families with disabled children know what rights and resources they have they might actually use them and apparently Devos opposes that kind of stuff.
Does she not know that online archive services exist?
The point was that the world is a cruel and merciless cold void devoid of all sympathy and we will all die alone.
In other news, the new secretary of education of USA sure got busy. http://m.seattlepi.com/local/politics/article/A-disability-website-disappears-Murray-10924413.php
...Because if families with disabled children know what rights and resources they have they might actually use them and apparently Devos opposes that kind of stuff.
Does she not know that online archive services exist?
Oh my sweet baby-back Jesus cum, Lana in two minutes found the ultimate way to defeat the Trump administration. Free punch and pie for all.
The point was that the world is a cruel and merciless cold void devoid of all sympathy and we will all die alone.
In other news, the new secretary of education of USA sure got busy. http://m.seattlepi.com/local/politics/article/A-disability-website-disappears-Murray-10924413.php
...Because if families with disabled children know what rights and resources they have they might actually use them and apparently Devos opposes that kind of stuff.
Does she not know that online archive services exist?
Oh my sweet baby-back Jesus cum, Lana in two minutes found the ultimate way to defeat the Trump administration. Free punch and pie for all.
https://theintercept.com/2017/02/13/spies-must-bored-easy-trump-makes-jobs/
The fact that everyone in the GOP isn't insisting on impeaching Trump ASAP is a clear sign that they care less about USA than they care about their position.
McMahon...
It'd be kind of funny if she suddenly declared she was turning from Heel to Face and kneed Trump in the groin.
"The leaks are absolutely real," he said. "The news is fake because so much of the news is fake."
Won't you get an early election when the impeachings get going? I know that Pence will replace Trump but what happens if/when he is impeached as well? Will they just go down the line picking successors and not have elections until 2020?I would imagine when Pence becomes president, he'd appoint his own vice president who'd then be next in line for the throne. So yeah, no elections until 2020 regardless of impeachments.
Won't you get an early election when the impeachings get going? I know that Pence will replace Trump but what happens if/when he is impeached as well? Will they just go down the line picking successors and not have elections until 2020?I would imagine when Pence becomes president, he'd appoint his own vice president who'd then be next in line for the throne. So yeah, no elections until 2020 regardless of impeachments.
I doubt any impeachment is going to happen. Not with a fully Republican congress.
That Republican Congress would probably prefer Pence to Trump. They're just waiting for a) Trump to give them everything they've been wanting to do for decades and b) Trump to fuck up hard enough that even most of his hardcore supporters admit that he has to go. (Because if they don't wait on the second one, those supporters will abandon them.)
No breaks on the Trump train! If the GOP turns on him the Trump-fanboys will turn on them. They will either have to watch USA burn or risk losing voters and political power. (We shall see which they care more about.)My guess is they'll wait until the ACA repeal. That will hit Trump's base hard, if they spin it right they can blame it on him in a way that's convincing to grassroots Republicans who, lets face facts, are probably just dumb enough to buy it.
They are.Fucking Fox news is telling a sitting Republican president to lay off threatening the media.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/02/19/fox-news-anchor-chris-wallace-warns-viewers-trump-crossed-the-line-in-latest-attack-on-media/
Ironbite-oh they are.
“If you look at these Cabinet nominees, they were selected for a reason, and that is deconstruction,” Bannon said. He posited that Trump’s announcement withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership was “one of the most pivotal moments in modern American history.”
Town halls and countless constituent meetings were a hallmark of my tenure in Congress. It's how I was able to serve the people of southern Arizona. I believe that listening to my constituents was the most basic and core tenet of the job I was hired to do. I was shot on a Saturday morning. By Monday morning my offices were open to the public. Ron Barber, at my side that Saturday, who was shot multiple times, then elected to Congress in my stead, held town halls. It's what the people deserve in a representative.
Is it even legal for Spicer to go through someone's phone? Because in Finland it would be something that requires a warrant from a judge I think...
Is it even legal for Spicer to go through someone's phone? Because in Finland it would be something that requires a warrant from a judge I think...
I think there's a difference between whether it's a government phone or a personal phone, because the latter would definitely be off-limits without a warrant but the former could well be open to his inspection.
Well...at least it sounds like Senator Isakson has an okay head on his shoulders, if nothin else.
So now the idiot is claiming Obama wiretapped Trump tower during the campaign. Most likely to deflect from this growing Russia issue. He needs to stop campaigning and try to run the country.
Historically speaking, presidents don't tend to hold onto power in congress for long.
So now the idiot is claiming Obama wiretapped Trump tower during the campaign. Most likely to deflect from this growing Russia issue. He needs to stop campaigning and try to run the country.
The US is in perpetual campaign mode--one of the downsides of fixed election dates. Plus the Republicans have a real chance of picking up a Senate supermajority in 2018.
And now trump with no evidence, and just on hear say is asking Congress to investigate this imaginary wire tapping of trump tower that he some how heard of or made up himself.
This just seems like him saying nuh uh you are to the whole Russian investigation.
I see the GOP losing a lot of seats in the house in 2018 not enough to give it to the democrats and probably maintaining or gaining a seat in the Senate. 2020 is probably when the dems might overtake something.
The real thing to watch in 2018 and 2020 is state races, as then the dems can undo the gerrymandering that kept them out of power for 10 years
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of Chusing Senators.
It is significant that the Framers provided a remedy for such practices* in the Constitution. Article 1, §4, while leaving in state legislatures the initial power to draw districts for federal elections, permitted Congress to “make or alter” those districts if it wished.
Whomever thought up gerrymandering should have been shot before he uttered a single word of it to anyone.
Whomever thought up gerrymandering should have been shot before he uttered a single word of it to anyone.
You sure it wasn't independently discovered by multiple people?
Who all happened to be the sole person on the electoral roll in one hundred separate districts?Whomever thought up gerrymandering should have been shot before he uttered a single word of it to anyone.
You sure it wasn't independently discovered by multiple people?
Now Trump has said that Obama has 'wire-tapped' trump tower. The best thing to come out of it is Sarah Huckabee Sanders saying if that's true then it is a big deal. Ignoring the fact that Trump could get direct knowledge if there was any.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJTGjxhcCI4
...like a confused centenarian thinking that he's back dodging ordinance in the Somme. This is supposed to...reassure people?
Eh, I didn't mean to imply Trump would be brave enough to put his orange arsehole into danger. Merely that he sounded like he was having a "grandad moment"....like a confused centenarian thinking that he's back dodging ordinance in the Somme. This is supposed to...reassure people?
No, like a cowardly twenty-something with "bone spurs" dodging STDs at orgies while children of poorer parents go to Vietnam to be cannon fodder.
How long before it is also struck down by a federal judge?
"That's what America is about, a land of dreams and opportunity, There were other immigrants who came here in the bottom of slave ships, worked even longer, even harder for less. But they too had a dream that one day their sons, daughters, grandsons, granddaughters, great-grandsons, great-granddaughters, might pursue prosperity and happiness in this land."
OK!! Ben Carson....I can't! Immigrants ? In the bottom of SLAVE SHIPS??!! MUTHAFUKKA PLEASE!!!#dickheadedtom
I'll never make another "brain surgeon" joke again.
New travel ban set to be implemented today. It's the same as the old one only Iraq has been left off the no go country list.
Ironbite-thats ballsy
New travel ban set to be implemented today. It's the same as the old one only Iraq has been left off the no go country list.
Ironbite-thats ballsy
It also doesn't turn away permanent residents and people with visas.
A federal judge in Hawaii issued a nationwide order Wednesday evening blocking President Trump’s ban on travel from parts of the Muslim world, dealing a political blow to the White House and signaling that proponents of the ban face a long and risky legal battle ahead.
The ruling was the second frustrating defeat for Mr. Trump’s travel ban, after a federal court in Seattle halted an earlier version of the executive order last month. Mr. Trump responded to that setback with fury, lashing out at the judiciary before ultimately abandoning the order.
He issued a new and narrower travel ban on March 6, with the aim of pre-empting new lawsuits by abandoning some of the most contentious elements of the first version.
But Mr. Trump evidently failed in that goal: Democratic states and nonprofit groups that work with immigrants and refugees raced into court to attack the updated order, alleging that it was a thinly veiled version of the ban on Muslim migration that he had pledged to enact last year, as a presidential candidate.
Continue reading the main story
The Trump White House
Stories about President Trump’s administration.
Donald Trump Budget Slashes Funds for E.P.A. and State Department
MAR 15
Jackson and Trump: How Two Populist Presidents Compare
MAR 15
Is It Illegal to Publish a President’s Tax Returns?
MAR 15
Trump Calls 2005 Tax Return Release ‘Fake News’
MAR 15
U.S. May Soon Increase Pressure on China to Constrain North Korea
MAR 15
See More »
RECENT COMMENTS
MareeB 1 hour ago
Checks and balances!I'm sure we'll see a twitter meltdown sometime soon. Unless he's still fighting with Snoop Dogg.It seems this was also...
Tracy Mitrano 1 hour ago
The Trump Administration is testing the Constitution of the United States. For school children, this kind of activity is a textbook civil...
Ludwig 1 hour ago
I think the federal judge is overstepping his authority. The president does have such powers under the constitution. But Trump has been...
SEE ALL COMMENTS WRITE A COMMENT
Administration lawyers argued in multiple courts on Wednesday that the president was merely exercising his national security powers and that no element of the executive order, as written, could be construed as a religious test for travelers.
But in the lawsuit brought by Hawaii’s attorney general, Doug Chin, Judge Derrick K. Watson appeared skeptical of the government’s claim that past comments by Mr. Trump and his allies had no bearing on the case.
“Are you saying we close our eyes to the sequence of statements before this?” Judge Watson, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama, asked in a hearing Wednesday before he ruled against the administration.
Ironbite-wonder if he'll go for a third strike on this?He might, Trump believes in nothing but Trump remember and he can use this drama to fire up his base and distract them from the fact that they'll lose their healthcare, won't get their old jobs back and that a whole lot of his cabinet and people close to him are real cozy with Russia.
Is it just me, or is there a common refrain among Trump's supporters that "he said he'd get things done and by golly, that's what he's doing!" without anyone actually questioning whether or not the shit he's getting done is actually making things better for people?
TRUMP says that he is doing a great job. They trust him because unlike the lying political elite, Trump is trustworthy. It's not like he would lie after all...It's an alternative fact that this never happens.
Is it just me, or has the Raging Cheeto already visibly aged during his first few weeks in office? Shit, at least Obama took a year or so before he started to look kinda haggard. At this rate, he'll probably die of a heart attack before the year's up.
Is it just me, or has the Raging Cheeto already visibly aged during his first few weeks in office? Shit, at least Obama took a year or so before he started to look kinda haggard. At this rate, he'll probably die of a heart attack before the year's up.
Yes fucking please! I'd love to attend Trump's funeral.
Is it just me, or has the Raging Cheeto already visibly aged during his first few weeks in office? Shit, at least Obama took a year or so before he started to look kinda haggard. At this rate, he'll probably die of a heart attack before the year's up.
Yes fucking please! I'd love to attend Trump's funeral.
Problem is, then your get Pence AKA Trump without even the faux-populism and a shit-ton more actual misogyny and homophobia.
The Democrats made up and pushed the Russian story as an excuse for running a terrible campaign. Big advantage in Electoral College & lost!
I have been authorised by the Department of Justice to confirm that the FBI, as part of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.
Is it just me, or has the Raging Cheeto already visibly aged during his first few weeks in office? Shit, at least Obama took a year or so before he started to look kinda haggard. At this rate, he'll probably die of a heart attack before the year's up.
Yes fucking please! I'd love to attend Trump's funeral.
Problem is, then your get Pence AKA Trump without even the faux-populism and a shit-ton more actual misogyny and homophobia.
Let's be real here. Pence is your ordinary garden-variety reactionary. Bad, sure, but he's not Trump. He'll do things like get rid of health care, try to ban gay marriage and abortions, and enforce Christianity, but Trump will do all those things too. What he won't do is deliberately insult world leaders because he's feeling angry, make up imaginary wiretappings because he's had a bad week, and try to call into question the basic structures of our government. Those are things he won't do, and that's why I'd rather have President Pence than Trumpy.
And now for the FBI explanation for why they didn't talk about this during the election while going public about how they "definitely may have found something on Clinton" and then waiting a few days before going "oops, my bad, we got nothing."
...
...
...Are they going to explain that?
And now for the FBI explanation for why they didn't talk about this during the election while going public about how they "definitely may have found something on Clinton" and then waiting a few days before going "oops, my bad, we got nothing."
...
...
...Are they going to explain that?
No
It simply isn't possible to be too cynical with this utterly shambolic shitshow.And now for the FBI explanation for why they didn't talk about this during the election while going public about how they "definitely may have found something on Clinton" and then waiting a few days before going "oops, my bad, we got nothing."
...
...
...Are they going to explain that?
No
One theory I heard bandied around (by completely biased but amusing commentators) was that Comey thought he was buying himself some appearance of impartiality. Effectively Comey thought Clinton had an unassailable lead and wanted cover for when he had to start prosecutions of members of the Trump campaign post election. Although this appears entirely too cynical.
Well we have it and lots of us are descended from convicts.
Retroactive intergerational imprisonment?
Saw this on Twitter today:
"TRUMP: So, Paul, how's it going over there today? Am I winning or are you losing?"
Got to admit, all policy aside, Trump's ultimatum was a masterful solution to his political problem with the AHCA... although this was largely a problem of his own making. Trump saves quite a bit of face (not all of it, but quite a bit), and Ryan/Congress ends up looking like a complete failure, making Trump all the more powerful on the Hill.
Breitbart comments are saying this was the Trump plan all along to destroy Paul Ryan, which is absurd, but Trump has cannier spur-of-the-moment political instincts than I once gave him credit for. He took the trilemma presented by FiveThirtyEight the other day (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-has-no-good-options-on-health-care/)and kinda did the best parts of all three.
In many respects, AHCA was indeed more conservative than the ACA. Entitlement reforms, tax reforms, and so forth -- all very conservative. But when it came to the core mechanics of health care delivery, which are really the center of the bill, AHCA tried to solve the "three-legged stool" problem by retaining a bunch of unwieldy regulations, backed up by imposing price controls on insurance companies. All in the name of "removing" an individual mandate that was not really removed in any meaningful sense. And where was the effort to seriously extend insurance portability, so you can carry one policy between jobs and into the individual market? You cannot have a successful continuous coverage mandate if there a whole lot of people out there who are incapable of maintaining continuous coverage!
The tax credits system was very conservative, I admit, but in the stupidest way possible. It's like if Paul Ryan wanted to play directly to every single stereotype about Republicans throwing the poor under the bus for the sake of middle-class whites (and the Freedom Caucus, I am sad to say, was all too eager to push him farther). I leave it to Avik Roy to say (https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2017/03/07/house-gops-obamacare-replacement-will-make-coverage-unaffordable-for-millions-otherwise-its-great/#3ffe83c237fd) what I think about all that.
Still, I've come to regret saying that I want an "actually conservative" bill. Parts of the AHCA that were unconservative were terrible... but parts that were, by any standard definition, pretty conservative, were also pretty terrible. Those parts managed to synergize to turn the core of this bill into an unholy, insurance-destroying mess.
So I guess what I want is a carefully thought-through bill that is built on conservative principles of minimal intervention, simplicity, state primacy, and individual empowerment -- but I'm willing to tax and spend quite a bit of money to get there, I don't think it's vital to cut taxes as part of a health care reform, and I want the poor to be not screwed over, all of which are traditionally considered old-school liberal priorities. Both the Huffington Post and Breitbart comment sections would crucify me for my plan. (Guess I'm still a Reformocon at heart, even after the last year.)
Of course, it is worth noting that ACA fans would likely say that their bill does indeed follow the principles of minimal intervention, simplicity, state primacy, and individual empowerment... but I think the ACA does those things in the same way the AHCA does insurance portability. Which is to say, it kinda looks like it might if you don't look closely, but then you do look closely and it's a horror show.
> I love America and kittensOh come on, plenty of Trump supporters claim they love America and Hitler!
> I love Hitler and shooting sweet old grannies in the face
> I love America and kittensOh come on, plenty of Trump supporters claim they love America and Hitler!
> I love Hitler and shooting sweet old grannies in the face
Does anyone think that Trump is secretly happy that Trumpcare didn't pass. That way most of Trumps key demographics can keep receiving benefits. All he has to do is stop calling it Obamacare and start calling it the Affordable Care Act.
Does anyone think that Trump is secretly happy that Trumpcare didn't pass. That way most of Trumps key demographics can keep receiving benefits. All he has to do is stop calling it Obamacare and start calling it the Affordable Care Act.
He is secretly happy that the AHCA was pulled, because it makes Ryan look weak for being unable to keep his caucus in line.
Trump and Ryan don't exactly get along and Trump would like nothing more than to have as House Speaker someone as pliable and subservient as Mitch McConnell.
Fox News host Judge Jeanine Pirro, whose show President Trump urged his followers on Twitter to watch earlier in the day, opened her program on Saturday evening by calling on Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) to step down.
"Ryan needs to step down as Speaker of the House. The reason: He failed to deliver the votes on his healthcare bill, the one trumpeted to repeal and replace ObamaCare," Pirro said in her opening statement.
Does anyone think that Trump is secretly happy that Trumpcare didn't pass. That way most of Trumps key demographics can keep receiving benefits. All he has to do is stop calling it Obamacare and start calling it the Affordable Care Act.Nah, he's not a big picture guy. He's a 'nick as much shit as you can and get out' type fella. Reading between the lines isn't common among people who don't like to read.
I'm not saying it was his original plan. He thought it would be simple "Who knew healthcare could be so complicated". Now that he's realised 'Obamacare' is probably pretty good and removing it would fuck his voters. His gut is now just to leave it. As long as he pretends the ACA is different to Obamacare he can pretend its all good and his voters will be happy with it.Well his voters are dumb enough to buy that line, I'll grant you that.
Yeah, that's the big if. As my dad always says, "The Democrats have an amazing talent for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory."
I've been thinking that right now, the Democrats really need to avoid falling into the grave the GOP dug for themselves by actually proposing new laws. Like just every chance they get the floor, throw something out there. Doesn't even matter if it's feasible. Propose single payer. Propose mincome. Propose phasing out fossil fuels by 2030. Propose Mars colonies. Propose open season on murdering billionaires. They don't all have to be good. Just get the ideas out there on the table. Change them from "Things no one would ever seriously try" to "Things we coulda tried if we hadn't left the arsonist party in charge." However many years later they get bakc in power, they've already got some stuff on the table that the people have heard of and thought about, instead of years of "Trust us, we'll have a great plan," which turns out to alienate everyone. And all those ideas that would've been considered unthinkable will have evolved into "The reasonable alternative to the clusterfuck we're in now."
Heck, since Hillary's chance has come and gone, maybe she could write a blog where every week she just very politely says what she'd have done instead.
Rather than the GOP's strategy of being "The party of No", they should as hard as they can be the party of "This instead".
I don't know if the senate rules allow it, but maybe when the vote on Gorsuch happens, instead of voting "Nay", get every single democrat to register their official vote for the record as "Merrick Garland.
Quote...Propose Mars colonies. Propose open season on murdering billionaires. ...
Ok I voted for Trump...
Do you mind if I ask why you like him?
Do you mind if I ask why you like him?
Firstly, I liked how he speaks his mind, though at times I think there are times he needs to think before speaking. I also like that he supposedly isn't attached to the establishment and that he ran on his own campaign funds. Also, I am getting tired of all of the SJW, BLM, politically correct bullshit and he represented an opposition to that. (That SJW PC crap turned me into a centrist) I also liked that he wants to go after illegal immigrants who have been taking jobs away from Americans. I know personally of quite a few people who have either been passed over for some Mexican or have been fired from a majority Mexican job who possibly may have illegal immigrants in it. So I am against that but not for those who have came here the proper way and worked their asses off to be here, it's not fair for those to have gone through all that to build a life here and see illegals come in and get everything for free.
Secondly, Hillary is corrupt. I have read some of the Wikileaks emails and I also have read about how she threatened and intimidated some of Bill's rape victims. She also had that whole thing with Benghazi and some other stuff that escapes me at the moment but all I knew was I didn't want her as President. Maybe someone else but I really feel the DNC messed up with having her run.
If this makes me "dumb" or "stupid" then so be it, I know I won't get along with everyone on here.
I still have my own personal political beliefs about certain things. I don't hate anyone but I just want to be open about this.
Firstly, I liked how he speaks his mind, though at times I think there are times he needs to think before speaking.
I also like that he supposedly isn't attached to the establishment and that he ran on his own campaign funds.
Also, I am getting tired of all of the SJW, BLM, politically correct bullshit and he represented an opposition to that. (That SJW PC crap turned me into a centrist)
I also liked that he wants to go after illegal immigrants who have been taking jobs away from Americans. I know personally of quite a few people who have either been passed over for some Mexican or have been fired from a majority Mexican job who possibly may have illegal immigrants in it. So I am against that but not for those who have came here the proper way and worked their asses off to be here, it's not fair for those to have gone through all that to build a life here and see illegals come in and get everything for free.
Secondly, Hillary is corrupt. I have read some of the Wikileaks emails and I also have read about how she threatened and intimidated some of Bill's rape victims. She also had that whole thing with Benghazi and some other stuff that escapes me at the moment but all I knew was I didn't want her as President. Maybe someone else but I really feel the DNC messed up with having her run.
1) I thought you were a Muslim, or at least had some sort of islamic tint to your religious beliefs, was that right? And do/are you still?
2) I also thought you had trouble finding work/healthcare? Are you on Medicare/ Medicaid? I remember you had trouble with your teeth
3) What do you think immigrants (legal or illegal) get for free that americans don't?
Yes, they compete for jobs with native workers, and that causes a lot of problems for a lot of people. However, where the rubber meets the road, the biggest threat to our economy is how these people will impact our social safety nets and other public programs.
As a country, we have to be realistic about illegal immigration: as long as the U.S. economy offers greater opportunities than the economies in Central America and Mexico, people will continue to do what they need to do to get here. We just don't have the money or manpower to do much about it.
4) What was it about Benghazi and Hillary's involvement that concerns you?
5) Are you not concerned about Trump ordering a military strike in Yemen which resulted in the death of both a US soldier and an 8 year old Yemeni girl which was considered too risky by the previous administration? It also did not result in any new intelligence information.
6) I've heard the story about Hillary threatening rape victims, although when I've read the details the apparent threat is along the lines of Hillary saying 'hello', are you not equally concerned about the stories that Trump raped an underage girl and has sexually assaulted women personally?
7) When you say Hillary is corrupt what do you mean? Is it concerns about nepotism? Like allowing her totally unqualified daughter to have an office in the Whitehouse or security clearance?
8 ) Were you not concerned that a guy who said he has effectively bribed politicians and wouldn't release his tax returns was corrupt?
9) Do you really think that Trump and the Republicans are going to benefit you and your family, and if so why?
Ok I voted for Trump...
Oh, that is rich. Bless your heart.
I don't see how illegal immigrants are bad for society. Particularly in the US they pay more in taxes than they take out in services. Besides which try running the us agriculture industry without them.It's bad because it's all at the lower class's expense, which is already having a rather bad time of things. Those illegals paying more taxes than they use in services are doing so because they're doing some unskilled job for well below minimum wage, a job that would otherwise be done by a legal worker for at least minimum wage and benefits.
They have also found that if they start cracking down on immigrants it encourages crime because immigrants won't call the police. They have seen how this happens in LA
I don't see how illegal immigrants are bad for society. Particularly in the US they pay more in taxes than they take out in services. Besides which try running the us agriculture industry without them.It's bad because it's all at the lower class's expense, which is already having a rather bad time of things. Those illegals paying more taxes than they use in services are doing so because they're doing some unskilled job for well below minimum wage, a job that would otherwise be done by a legal worker for at least minimum wage and benefits.
They have also found that if they start cracking down on immigrants it encourages crime because immigrants won't call the police. They have seen how this happens in LA
Not to mention, the poor paying less taxes than they recieve in government services is exactly how it's supposed to work. It's the rich who're meant to pay more than they receive. It's one of the ways the government reduces inequality, much like progressive tax and minimum wage and benefits. Illegals fucking it up is not a good thing for society overall.
As for your other points, they wouldn't be an issue in the first place if the US took the same approach as the rest of the world and tried to keep their numbers to an absolute minimum, rather than simply paying lip service to the idea while in practice keeping them around as a substitute for slaves.
I don't know but I took a chance by voting for him. Perhaps by getting rid of illegals, trying to get manufacturing jobs back here in the USA, renegotiating NAFTA perhaps people like my nieces and nephew can get into jobs that are substantial, have good wages and be able to live comfortable enough lives.
She allegedly did, I wouldn't put it past her.
She didn't help our ambassadors in Libya when they needed to be rescued.
She and Obama have worsened the situation in the Middle East by bombing them and...
...starting the Syrian Civil War.
She said something racist in the past, something along the lines of "We need to bring these [black/inner city] thugs to heel."
I can't help but think that most of those problems would go away if employers could not get away with paying them less money than legal workersAbsolutely. Not holding employers accountable for hiring illegals is just as big an issue as not deporting said illegals.
I'm sorry, but saying Hillary Clinton being racist is why you voted for Trump is quite possibly the most ironic thing I've heard all year.
Do you mind if I ask why you like him?
Firstly, I liked how he speaks his mind, though at times I think there are times he needs to think before speaking. I also like that he supposedly isn't attached to the establishment and that he ran on his own campaign funds. Also, I am getting tired of all of the SJW, BLM, politically correct bullshit and he represented an opposition to that. (That SJW PC crap turned me into a centrist) I also liked that he wants to go after illegal immigrants who have been taking jobs away from Americans. I know personally of quite a few people who have either been passed over for some Mexican or have been fired from a majority Mexican job who possibly may have illegal immigrants in it. So I am against that but not for those who have came here the proper way and worked their asses off to be here, it's not fair for those to have gone through all that to build a life here and see illegals come in and get everything for free.
Secondly, Hillary is corrupt. I have read some of the Wikileaks emails and I also have read about how she threatened and intimidated some of Bill's rape victims. She also had that whole thing with Benghazi and some other stuff that escapes me at the moment but all I knew was I didn't want her as President. Maybe someone else but I really feel the DNC messed up with having her run.
If this makes me "dumb" or "stupid" then so be it, I know I won't get along with everyone on here.
I still have my own personal political beliefs about certain things. I don't hate anyone but I just want to be open about this.
And some people might think that being a woman is a flaw.
Donald Trump support racist conspiracy theories about Obama's birth. He started his campaign calling Mexican immigrants rapists. He called for an illegal ban on an entire religion. He retweeted fake statistics on black crime rates from neo-nazis. He refused to condemn the KKK in a live interview. He said that five black teenagers who were proven innocent by DNA evidence should be executed anyway. he ran a campaign entirely based on racism, to the point where stormfront founder Don Black credited him with reviving Neo-Nazism as a political force.
DIRECT QUESTION
Does any of that bother you?
Because I'm sorry but I don't believe you when you say that Hillary allegedly "bringing thugs to heel" offends you if your fine with everything Trump did.
So what if Trump is "racist" seriously the only people pumping out that narrative is the leftist media. Even if he did say that shit that's on him and he is not perfect in anyway, he's human, but don't act like the Democrats can't be racist either. You do know about the Dixiecrats right? Maybe you should look back at the Civil Rights era and see who the people were that actually wanted to oppress the black people.
Speaking of racists, the people that I have been seeing that are the most openly racist people are blacks. Look at their BLM marches. You can't tell me them saying "kill all white people" and "fuck all white people" isn't racist. I don't hate blacks but there has been an increasing amount of demonization of white people by the left.
Another thing, the second largest group of people who voted for Trump were Hispanics so he must have done something to appeal to them.
Radiation, this is fucking strange. I'm not convinced you aren't just fucking with us. U trolling?
Radiation, this is fucking strange. I'm not convinced you aren't just fucking with us. U trolling?
I did vote for Trump but maybe I could be wrong. The fact is I still have liberal views, more left of center. All the stuff about SJWs, BLM, the demonization of white people, etc I got from watching mostly alt-right YouTube channels and websites. I could go on but I am at the food pantry right now.
Radiation, this is fucking strange. I'm not convinced you aren't just fucking with us. U trolling?
I did vote for Trump but maybe I could be wrong. The fact is I still have liberal views, more left of center. All the stuff about SJWs, BLM, the demonization of white people, etc I got from watching mostly alt-right YouTube channels and websites. I could go on but I am at the food pantry right now.
Are you sure you hold liberal views if you are parroting alt-right talking points? I'm a bit surprised because I would have thought you would be the natural demographic for Sanders. I know people were upset about him not winning the democratic nomination but I would have thought you would go with the party closest to what he was pushing for.
Well, I think we have our new Ultimate Paragon, Skybison.Well I thought we had the old one was back, with a sparkly new avatar.
Any bets on how long this one will last?
I will say that I still don't like SJWs, BLM, and the notion of "white privilege" and "white supremacy" That hurts me because deep in my heart I have no hatred for other races yet I am being attacked by these extremists for my skin color. I have been taught that we should be equal and I believe in that whole heartedly.
Plz Allah give me strength to not cuss/kill these men and white folks out here today.
Ok, tell you what. I'm going to sleep on this and do some more research, if anything my mind can always be changed about something, I just feel a bit hurt right now and not really thinking rationally.
I will say that I still don't like SJWs, BLM, and the notion of "white privilege" and "white supremacy" That hurts me because deep in my heart I have no hatred for other races yet I am being attacked by these extremists for my skin color. I have been taught that we should be equal and I believe in that whole heartedly.
She. Radiation is a she.
Ironbite-and gone.
She. Radiation is a she.
Ironbite-and gone.
You can be a racist without openly hating anyone. Me too, I can easily think of times when I've acted on unconscious racism and didn't realize it until later.
*sigh* While I don't like the idea of people quitting because they feel ganged up on, as far as I can see that didn't happen here. People might have been passionate about the ideas they were debating but the invective was on a pretty low dial. For when it's turned up look at the locked Gamergate thread or any discussion with Contrarian.
I'm sorry you're leaving Radiation, but people weren't saying you were bad. They were saying you were wrong. Different.
https://www.gofundme.com/BuyCongressData
*redacted due to irrelevance* (Plus President Trump's, if he signs it.)
https://www.gofundme.com/BuyCongressData
*redacted due to irrelevance* (Plus President Trump's, if he signs it.)
Yeah, I think it's safe to say that Mel Brooks as the governor in Blazing Saddles would be more likely to veto something like this than Trump.
I am not good at defining things, what do you want me to do? I am pretty sure you can see examples on Youtube and elsewhere but SJWs are those far leftists who get offended by everything and want to force their viewpoints on everyone else. Political correctness is basically replacing words are phrases that are deemed "offensive" with words that are less offensive unfortunately this causes censorship and people can't say what they want to say.
2. How does replacing "offensive" words and phrases "with words that are less offensive" stifle intelligent debate? You can still effectively make the same points, only with slightly different wording to convey the message; it's like telling a story while not saying the "fuck" word in polite company.
2. How does replacing "offensive" words and phrases "with words that are less offensive" stifle intelligent debate? You can still effectively make the same points, only with slightly different wording to convey the message; it's like telling a story while not saying the "fuck" word in polite company.
If you do away with the prohibition against 'vulgar language' you get Australia. I've heard sweet old grandmothers say "fuck you, cunt" in passing.
The stuff scraped off the bottom of the Carlton United Breweries vat.
2. How does replacing "offensive" words and phrases "with words that are less offensive" stifle intelligent debate? You can still effectively make the same points, only with slightly different wording to convey the message; it's like telling a story while not saying the "fuck" word in polite company.
If you do away with the prohibition against 'vulgar language' you get Australia. I've heard sweet old grandmothers say "fuck you, cunt" in passing.
Well, your country is weird. Seriously, the fuck is vegemite?
also it is life.
I live in Michigan, why?
If it's any consolation, you're far from the only one to regret your vote (https://twitter.com/trump_regrets?lang=en).
If it's any consolation, you're far from the only one to regret your vote (https://twitter.com/trump_regrets?lang=en).
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/03/22/how-many-trump-voters-really-regret-their-votes/?utm_term=.44c1d09802ad
But maybe one of the few.
I wonder how much of Trump's search history revolves around Ivanka?...and what are the other search terms.
I wonder how much of Trump's search history revolves around Ivanka?...and what are the other search terms.
I want to give a special shout out to John McCain for brining Republican hypocrisy to a new level by voting for McConnell going nuclear and then calling it "a bad day for democracy."
Fuck him and his party.
That moment when launch military strikes in Syria (http://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/06/politics/donald-trump-syria-military/index.html?adkey=bn), but refuse to take in Syrian refugees.
I give up.
I feel like Trump did this impulsively. I hope this idiot didn't escalate things even further. Especially since I'm hearing rumors that there were Russian soldiers on those bases.
I want to give a special shout out to John McCain for brining Republican hypocrisy to a new level by voting for McConnell going nuclear and then calling it "a bad day for democracy."
Fuck him and his party.
I feel like Trump did this impulsively. I hope this idiot didn't escalate things even further. Especially since I'm hearing rumors that there were Russian soldiers on those bases.
"Trump is impulsive and thin-skinned!"
"Trump is Putin's bitch!"
So... what happens when he decides to prove he isn't Putin's bitch, because he's so impulsive and thin-skinned?
This.
YOUR Prez, Radiation. You made your bed now sleep in it.
YOUR Prez, Radiation. You made your bed now sleep in it.
Was that really necessary?
Wasn't the bombing on an airfield that was supposedly holding some chemicals or something like that? Either way this doesmake me a bit nervous. I don't want to witness World War III, I was hoping I would long be dead before that happens.
YOUR Prez, Radiation. You made your bed now sleep in it.
Was that really necessary?
YOUR Prez, Radiation. You made your bed now sleep in it.
Was that really necessary?
Radiation voted for this President, and the evidence for this sort of behavior was all over his campaign.
Radiation chose not to see it for what it was, because "brown people taking white people jobs".
So I'll say it again.
Radiation, you voted for this lunatic. You subscribed to alt-right viewpoints and helped to elect a madman consumed by his own ego. You made this bed for yourself, with all its urine stains. NOW SLEEP IN IT.
YOUR Prez, Radiation. You made your bed now sleep in it.
YOUR Prez, Radiation. You made your bed now sleep in it.
Was that really necessary?
Radiation voted for this President, and the evidence for this sort of behavior was all over his campaign.
Radiation chose not to see it for what it was, because "brown people taking white people jobs".
So I'll say it again.
Radiation, you voted for this lunatic. You subscribed to alt-right viewpoints and helped to elect a madman consumed by his own ego. You made this bed for yourself, with all its urine stains. NOW SLEEP IN IT.
Because we've conditioned to see those sorts of expenditures as a "bad thing". We Americans really can't actually grasp the fact that the world has moved on from a manufacturing economy to a service one. And service jobs are a finite resource.
Ironbite-the whole world might need to suffer another economic collapse before anyone figures that out.
She already regrets her decision. You don't need to twist the knife like a goddamn sadist.
She already regrets her decision. You don't need to twist the knife like a goddamn sadist.
This is niam we're talking about. I'm not sure if he's physically capable of not twisting knives.
She already regrets her decision. You don't need to twist the knife like a goddamn sadist.
This is niam we're talking about. I'm not sure if he's physically capable of not twisting knives.
Admittedly true.
However consider this.
Radiation says she regrets her vote - but does she regret, really regret, the thought processes that led her to voting for this man. I remember quite well indeed that she said she supported him because he was not politically correct, that she resented the term white privilege as if it was a direct insult to her, and that she disliked that Mexicans were taking jobs and that there were "predominately Mexican jobs". She admitted to listening to alt-right perspectives, and listed a few she listened to.
Even if she regrets voting for Trump, could she honestly say she would not vote for another charismatic demagogue offering an end to all these brown people taking jobs and being politically incorrect and courting the alt-right, but swearing up and down he would not intervene in other countries or start a war.
And when he inevitably breaks that promise - men like Trump have ALWAYS been apt warmongers no matter what they say - will we get more regrets then?
She already regrets her decision. You don't need to twist the knife like a goddamn sadist.
This is niam we're talking about. I'm not sure if he's physically capable of not twisting knives.
Admittedly true.
However consider this.
Radiation says she regrets her vote - but does she regret, really regret, the thought processes that led her to voting for this man. I remember quite well indeed that she said she supported him because he was not politically correct, that she resented the term white privilege as if it was a direct insult to her, and that she disliked that Mexicans were taking jobs and that there were "predominately Mexican jobs". She admitted to listening to alt-right perspectives, and listed a few she listened to.
Even if she regrets voting for Trump, could she honestly say she would not vote for another charismatic demagogue offering an end to all these brown people taking jobs and being politically incorrect and courting the alt-right, but swearing up and down he would not intervene in other countries or start a war.
And when he inevitably breaks that promise - men like Trump have ALWAYS been apt warmongers no matter what they say - will we get more regrets then?
>Implying any of that justifies kicking her while she's down
Yeah, she said a lot of things I pretty strongly disagree with, but I'm not going to bite her head off over them. Let's try and be constructive, by having an actual conversation with her. It's better than vindictively insulting her. Seriously, you're coming off like a goddamn sociopath.
She already regrets her decision. You don't need to twist the knife like a goddamn sadist.
This is niam we're talking about. I'm not sure if he's physically capable of not twisting knives.
Admittedly true.
However consider this.
Radiation says she regrets her vote - but does she regret, really regret, the thought processes that led her to voting for this man. I remember quite well indeed that she said she supported him because he was not politically correct, that she resented the term white privilege as if it was a direct insult to her, and that she disliked that Mexicans were taking jobs and that there were "predominately Mexican jobs". She admitted to listening to alt-right perspectives, and listed a few she listened to.
Even if she regrets voting for Trump, could she honestly say she would not vote for another charismatic demagogue offering an end to all these brown people taking jobs and being politically incorrect and courting the alt-right, but swearing up and down he would not intervene in other countries or start a war.
And when he inevitably breaks that promise - men like Trump have ALWAYS been apt warmongers no matter what they say - will we get more regrets then?
>Implying any of that justifies kicking her while she's down
Yeah, she said a lot of things I pretty strongly disagree with, but I'm not going to bite her head off over them. Let's try and be constructive, by having an actual conversation with her. It's better than vindictively insulting her. Seriously, you're coming off like a goddamn sociopath.
...that is what I am.
She already regrets her decision. You don't need to twist the knife like a goddamn sadist.
This is niam we're talking about. I'm not sure if he's physically capable of not twisting knives.
Admittedly true.
However consider this.
Radiation says she regrets her vote - but does she regret, really regret, the thought processes that led her to voting for this man. I remember quite well indeed that she said she supported him because he was not politically correct, that she resented the term white privilege as if it was a direct insult to her, and that she disliked that Mexicans were taking jobs and that there were "predominately Mexican jobs". She admitted to listening to alt-right perspectives, and listed a few she listened to.
Even if she regrets voting for Trump, could she honestly say she would not vote for another charismatic demagogue offering an end to all these brown people taking jobs and being politically incorrect and courting the alt-right, but swearing up and down he would not intervene in other countries or start a war.
And when he inevitably breaks that promise - men like Trump have ALWAYS been apt warmongers no matter what they say - will we get more regrets then?
>Implying any of that justifies kicking her while she's down
Yeah, she said a lot of things I pretty strongly disagree with, but I'm not going to bite her head off over them. Let's try and be constructive, by having an actual conversation with her. It's better than vindictively insulting her. Seriously, you're coming off like a goddamn sociopath.
...that is what I am.
Wait. You mean, you've been diagnosed?
...but swearing up and down he would not intervene in other countries or start a war.
...but swearing up and down he would not intervene in other countries or start a war.
Don't forget that half the time Trump said that the US shouldn't be intervening and that they should be spending money at home, and the other half of the time he said "You have to take out their families." (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWiaYQUV2oM)
...but swearing up and down he would not intervene in other countries or start a war.
Don't forget that half the time Trump said that the US shouldn't be intervening and that they should be spending money at home, and the other half of the time he said "You have to take out their families." (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWiaYQUV2oM)
Trump said one thing to impress the non-interventionist types, and the other to convince warhawks he was going tojuse Waffen-SS tactics on ISISbe more commanding and powerful in the Middle East.
...but swearing up and down he would not intervene in other countries or start a war.
Don't forget that half the time Trump said that the US shouldn't be intervening and that they should be spending money at home, and the other half of the time he said "You have to take out their families." (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWiaYQUV2oM)
Trump said one thing to impress the non-interventionist types, and the other to convince warhawks he was going tojuse Waffen-SS tactics on ISISbe more commanding and powerful in the Middle East.
I know, I know, and everyone heard what they wanted to hear and assumed he didn't actually mean the other and laughed at people who pointed out that he was on both sides of the issue.
All in all, emails about defunct links of sites that weren’t saved are annoying, but harmless. Finding archived materials to replace them add maybe 20 minutes of internet searches to my day – and a bit of anger at the state of the country.
The consequences of vanishing citations, however, pose a far more serious consequence than website updates. Each defunct page is an effort by the Trump administration to deliberately undermine our ability to make good policy decisions by limiting access to scientific evidence.
We’ve seen this type of data strangling before.
Just three years ago, Arctic researchers witnessed another world leader remove thousands of scientific documents from the public domain. In 2014, then Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper closed 11 department of fisheries and oceans regional libraries, including the only Arctic center. Hundreds of reports and studies containing well over a century of research were destroyed in that process – a historic loss from which we still have not recovered.
Trumps speeches are like the bible. A turbid mix of anecdote, half baked morality and vengeful rambling....but swearing up and down he would not intervene in other countries or start a war.
Don't forget that half the time Trump said that the US shouldn't be intervening and that they should be spending money at home, and the other half of the time he said "You have to take out their families." (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWiaYQUV2oM)
Trump said one thing to impress the non-interventionist types, and the other to convince warhawks he was going tojuse Waffen-SS tactics on ISISbe more commanding and powerful in the Middle East.
I know, I know, and everyone heard what they wanted to hear and assumed he didn't actually mean the other and laughed at people who pointed out that he was on both sides of the issue.
That's his secret. He speaks in half-sentences and promises to do everything and nothing and people somehow only hear what they want to hear AND they manage to claim that not only does Trump always mean what he says (unlike other politicians) he also does not mean it when he says things that the fan did not want to hear...
The carriage “would not be able to put up much resistance in the face of a rocket propelled grenade or high-powered ammunition,” one security source told the Times of London, noting that tens of thousands of people are expected to protest Trump’s visit.
“Armour-piercing rounds would make a very bad show of things,” the source added.
Still, the White House regards the carriage procession to Buckingham Palace as an essential bit of pomp for his state visit to the UK, currently planned for the second week of October, The Times reported Saturday.
I wonder if he will realize the security concerns cannot be removed by just telling people to make them go away
I wonder if he will realize the security concerns cannot be removed by just telling people to make them go away
Has it ever worked out that way in the past?
Didn't stop him from wanting to still live in Trump Tower.But he doesn't live in the Trump tower. He lives 50/50 at the White house and Mar a Lago.
Didn't stop him from wanting to still live in Trump Tower.But he doesn't live in the Trump tower. He lives 50/50 at the White house and Mar a Lago.
Didn't stop him from wanting to still live in Trump Tower.But he doesn't live in the Trump tower. He lives 50/50 at the White house and Mar a Lago.
Oops. Mea culpa.
Well, it was exciting but Ossoff lost.
He didn't get over 50% in the first round and now Republicans are going to gang up against him so his chances of winning are reduced.
...And then he can blame the Democrats and Obama for all his failures. Win/win situation for him.
Considering how well the Republican strategy of obstruct everything and blame Obama worked, Trump wont give a shit until hes out of people he can throw under the bus. And i imagine that list is about as long as the list people who work in the government.
The problem with Wisconsin is that it is so heavily gerrymandered that the last state election had the Democrats winning over 60% of the vote... and only 49% of the seats. This state no longer has a functional democracy.
...I think Spicer is gonna have to resume his old job as the Easter Bunny before long.
http://shareblue.com/georgia-state-senator-lets-it-slip-gop-gerrymandered-ossoffs-district-to-disenfranchise-black-voters/
Ooops... Somebody accidentally said out loud that the state had been gerrymandered to make sure that a black candidate wouldn't get elected.
http://shareblue.com/georgia-state-senator-lets-it-slip-gop-gerrymandered-ossoffs-district-to-disenfranchise-black-voters/
Ooops... Somebody accidentally said out loud that the state had been gerrymandered to make sure that a black candidate wouldn't get elected.
http://shareblue.com/georgia-state-senator-lets-it-slip-gop-gerrymandered-ossoffs-district-to-disenfranchise-black-voters/
Ooops... Somebody accidentally said out loud that the state had been gerrymandered to make sure that a black candidate wouldn't get elected.
Except that that's not what they said. I'm all for punishing Republicans, believe me, but lets at least remember the difference between "they said this" and "they said some other thing, from which we inferred that he was intending to point out this guy's race subtly, which of course would imply this, assuming our inference is correct".
...I think Spicer is gonna have to resume his old job as the Easter Bunny before long.
President Donald Trump’s lawyers on Thursday argued that anti-Trump protesters infringed on his First Amendment right by expressing "dissenting views" at his campaign rallies.
According to a report by Politico, Trump's lawyers are asking a judge to halt an ongoing lawsuit against the president by maintaining that protesters "have no right" to voice opposing views during rallies.
Three protesters who were ejected from a March 2016 Trump campaign rally in Louisville, Ky., have sued, claiming that they were roughed up after Trump incited violence by shouting “get 'em out of here!” from the stage.
Trump’s lawyers, however, argued that the then-GOP nominee also specifically said “Don’t hurt ‘em.”
The president's legal team also maintained that Trump had every right to call for the removal of the protesters since they "interfered with the Trump campaign’s First Amendment right.”
So basically, anything he could accomplish easily by signing an EO he's done, and he's barely attempted anything more difficult that requires legislation. The one thing he has tried to accomplish, repeal and replace, crashed and burned incredibly hard. Still, overall he's accomplished a lot more of his promises than I expected, but things are going to get a lot harder from here on out when he has to actually work with congress to get anything done.
You know why Donald Trump thinks the first hundred days of his Presidency have been a success? Because the ratings news networks are getting with him are higher than what they got for the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
I kinda miss Dubya.
Let alone wondrous Obama...
How exactly is he going to pay for all of that?
"Excuse me, but there are a group of criminal aliens outside! They're wearing black and spiky armor and one of them just identified himself as Erebus, of the Word Bearers. No, I'm not stoned, and it looks like they're doing somethi---oh good lord they're crucifying my cousin!"
I should call in and say that.
"Excuse me, but there are a group of criminal aliens outside! They're wearing black and spiky armor and one of them just identified himself as Erebus, of the Word Bearers. No, I'm not stoned, and it looks like they're doing somethi---oh good lord they're crucifying my cousin!"
I should call in and say that.
"Excuse me, but there are a group of criminal aliens outside! They're wearing black and spiky armor and one of them just identified himself as Erebus, of the Word Bearers. No, I'm not stoned, and it looks like they're doing somethi---oh good lord they're crucifying my cousin!"
I should call in and say that.
Call in and tell them about how illegal Canadians are crossing our boarders and forcing your family to do Canadian things: watch hockey, eat poutine, listen to Justin Bieber, and ice-skate.
God damned Canadians
BTW if you heard about Trump starting a mini-trade war with Canada over softwood lumber, here's an old video explaining what the issue is
The Orange Piss Pot will not have any meaningful legislation passed in his first 100 days. House is going to delay the vote of FuckYouCare due to not having the votes to pass it.
Ironbite-wonder what he'll brag about on Saturday.
Or you elect a more competent president with almost as bad policies who is then worshiped as a herald of a new age for American politics since Trump has pretty much dug the bar under the ground.
I'm so glad that Trump only takes in the best, smartest, most honest, totally-not-Russian-agent men and women into his administration:
(http://68.media.tumblr.com/bd1f7f964eae33ddf927ddc5cb5800bf/tumblr_okk2wnujwH1qkt6yoo1_1280.png)
Or you elect a more competent president with almost as bad policies who is then worshiped as a herald of a new age for American politics since Trump has pretty much dug the bar under the ground.
Don't even need to do that. Just impeach Trump or get him to resign, and then you get Pence, who is a) more competent and b) has policies just as bad.
Which is another problem with impeaching Trump, because Pence will look so much better by comparison that everyone will forget that policy-wise he's every bit as bad as Trump and hence all those horrific positions will be normalized, even lauded.
Or you elect a more competent president with almost as bad policies who is then worshiped as a herald of a new age for American politics since Trump has pretty much dug the bar under the ground.
Don't even need to do that. Just impeach Trump or get him to resign, and then you get Pence, who is a) more competent and b) has policies just as bad.
Which is another problem with impeaching Trump, because Pence will look so much better by comparison that everyone will forget that policy-wise he's every bit as bad as Trump and hence all those horrific positions will be normalized, even lauded.
This assumes that Pence wouldn't resign due to being complicit in Trump's actions. However, THEN we get Paul Ryan as president... who's more competent than Trump (probably less than Pence) and just as bad at policy. So, really, we're screwed unless Paul Ryan is found to be connected to Trump's crimes/being compromised/whatever ultimately drives him out of office. Who's fourth in line for president, by the way?
Its real. Its from a couple months ago.
I'm so glad that Trump only takes in the best, smartest, most honest, totally-not-Russian-agent men and women into his administration:
[pic snipped]
Please tell me that's not real?
Side note: Trump has been president for over three months... and he's still holding campaign rallies.
Has this ever happened before?
Side note: Trump has been president for over three months... and he's still holding campaign rallies.
Has this ever happened before?
A leader having political rallies despite not being on a campaign trail? Sure: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Rally
It's no secret that Trump is a fascist. Any comparisons to historic fascists, especially when he's repeating the kinds of actions they made, is apt.
Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.
So instead of going to the white house correspondence dinner like a mature adult. Trump instead held a rally with his fans in Pennsylvania. His fans took it as Trump flipping off the media. But anyone on the outside can clearly see Trump doesn't want to have his widdle feelings hurt.
None of the funds made available in this Act to the Department of Justice may be used, with respect to any of the States of Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming, or with respect to the District of Columbia, Guam, or Puerto Rico, to prevent any of them from implementing their own laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana.
So under the new draft of the AHCA, guess what counts as a "pre-existing condition"
- domestic violence
- sexual assault
- C-section
- postpartum depression
WHAT THE FUCK
Well it looks like they're still struggling for votes in the house at the moment. But if this passes and somehow makes it through the senate i can only see it being really bad for house repubs come 2018. If it's not already.
FUCCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCK
Reporters alerted to the Bejing event, billed by host Chinese company Qiaowa in their brochures as “Invest $500,000 and immigrate to the United States,” were quickly ushered out as the event started and Kushner’s sister began her sales pitch.
According to the Post, reporters who had initially been seated at the very back of the ballroom were told they would have to leave by a public relations aide saying foreign reporters were disturbing the “stability” of the program. One reporter had their backpack and phone grabbed by an event organizer as reporters were blocked from asking event attendees questions as they exited the ballroom.
Asked why reporters were booted, a public relations aide stated, “This is not the story we want.”
Every time Trump tweets, I keep waiting for the golden one that is just pure classified info. The type of info that gets people killed for.
Ironbite-and then the GOP doesn't impeach the Orange Piss Pot because reasons.
But what's to stop Comey from coming out with that information now? What's to stop future committees from using him in future investigations that will most likely happen now that this looks really really fishy.
Unless Comey somehow mysteriously ends up dead......
But what's to stop Comey from coming out with that information now? What's to stop future committees from using him in future investigations that will most likely happen now that this looks really really fishy.
Unless Comey somehow mysteriously ends up dead......
Legal ramifications.
EDIT:
Also, their official reason for firing Comey is over her mistreatment of Clinton.
Yeah I wondering why Comey was being referred to as a she.
No instead it was because of how he treated Clinton during the run up to the election.
Ironbite-I'm flabbergasted by the balls on this man.
...this man just cannot do dictatorship, nor can he conspire very effectively.
Its like someone took the Nazis, excised the few competent people, and replaced them with utter idiocy and immediately obvious evil. They are trying to make rape a pre-existing condition to deny someone health care! They fired someone as soon as they got the inkling that this person had something on Trump!
Trump is exactly as he appears: a hopeless narcissist with the attention span of a fruit fly, unable to maintain consistent beliefs or commitments from moment to moment, acting on base instinct, entirely situationally, to bolster his terrifyingly fragile ego...
That’s who he is: a disregulated bundle of impulses, being manipulated by a cast of crooks and incompetents.
Read a vox article (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/5/12/15621140/interpret-trump) on Trump that might just be the scariest thinkpiece on Trump, I've seen. It has a really simple premise.QuoteTrump is exactly as he appears: a hopeless narcissist with the attention span of a fruit fly, unable to maintain consistent beliefs or commitments from moment to moment, acting on base instinct, entirely situationally, to bolster his terrifyingly fragile ego...
That’s who he is: a disregulated bundle of impulses, being manipulated by a cast of crooks and incompetents.
Trump isn't Hitler, or a Stalin, or a Tricky Dick or a Mad King George for that matter because those guys had beliefs and plans. He certainly isn't a Machiavellian Littlefinger type character.
Trump is an id, a screaming reptile brain with the nuclear codes. He's a big kid who's never been told "no" with the most powerful nation state on the planet at his beck and call.
Something, something, something... grossly negligent, Hillary's emails. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-revealed-highly-classified-information-to-russian-foreign-minister-and-ambassador/2017/05/15/530c172a-3960-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html?utm_term=.7abf938baba0)
I'm not sure ignorance is really the issue here.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/16/politics/donald-trump-russia-right/index.html
So Dump openly admits he shared information with the Russians after Mcmasters said he didn't last night. And pretty much said that because he did it it's ok. Like fucking Richard Nixon. Its not revealed whether the info was classified. Knowing this dip shit it probably was. He needs to just fucking resign already.
WASHINGTON — The classified intelligence that President Trump disclosed in a meeting last week with Russian officials at the White House was provided by Israel, according to a current and a former American official familiar with how the United States obtained the information. The revelation adds a potential diplomatic complication to the episode.
Israel is one of the United States’ most important allies and a major intelligence collector in the Middle East. The revelation that Mr. Trump boasted about some of Israel’s most sensitive information to the Russians could damage the relationship between the two countries. It also raises the possibility that the information could be passed to Iran, Russia’s close ally and Israel’s main threat in the Middle East.
BECAUSE THE GOP HAS AND WILL ALWAYS PUT PARTY OVER COUNTRY!That's kind of the norm rather than the exception. Politicians, like pretty much everyone else, care only about themselves. Good governance matters only when its interests align with their own.
I don't hold a lot of hope for an impeachment. Not with a Republican Congress, and the fact that corrupt politicians tend to get away with shit.
"No politician in history – and I say this with great surety – has been treated worse or more unfairly.”
Quote"No politician in history – and I say this with great surety – has been treated worse or more unfairly.”
Quote"No politician in history – and I say this with great surety – has been treated worse or more unfairly.”
To which I reply
"Kennedy. Lincoln. Garfield. McKinley. Reagan. Jackson. Taft. Roosevelt (both). Need I continue?"
Quote"No politician in history – and I say this with great surety – has been treated worse or more unfairly.”
To which I reply
"Kennedy. Lincoln. Garfield. McKinley. Reagan. Jackson. Taft. Roosevelt (both). Need I continue?"
Several sources close to Flynn and to the administration tell The Daily Beast that Trump has expressed his hopes that a resolution of the FBI's investigation in Flynn's favor might allow Flynn to rejoin the White House in some capacity — a scenario some of Trump’s closest advisers in and outside the West Wing have assured him absolutely should not happen.
Those sources said Trump didn't believe Flynn should be under investigation in the first place.
"Trump feels really, really, really, bad about firing him, and he genuinely thinks if the investigation is over Flynn can come back," said one White House official. [The Daily Beast]
McCainn noted that plenty of politicians have been treated worse. Him for example.
Quote"No politician in history – and I say this with great surety – has been treated worse or more unfairly.”
To which I reply
"Kennedy. Lincoln. Garfield. McKinley. Reagan. Jackson. Taft. Roosevelt (both). Need I continue?"
Well, if one of the Twitter accounts run by alleged White House staffers is true, he had Air Force 1 stocked with a shit load of frozen pizzas because he won't eat "foreign food."
Well, if one of the Twitter accounts run by alleged White House staffers is true, he had Air Force 1 stocked with a shit load of frozen pizzas because he won't eat "foreign food."
Well, if one of the Twitter accounts run by alleged White House staffers is true, he had Air Force 1 stocked with a shit load of frozen pizzas because he won't eat "foreign food."
But her emails!
I thought his name was John Cena.
The usual suspects (and Trump)
http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/22/news/wilbur-ross-saudi-protests/index.html
"Isn't it great how there are no protestors in the country where protesting means you get thrown in jail? Kinda like that North Korea too, everyone loves he leader there and there are absolutely no signs of anyone displeased. Maybe USA could learn a thing or two from them???????????? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ?" -Wilbur Ross basically.
...That or he had no idea that protests are illegal in SA and was talking out of his ass because he wanted to complain about the people in USA who voice their displeasure at the current regime.
http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/22/news/wilbur-ross-saudi-protests/index.html
"Isn't it great how there are no protestors in the country where protesting means you get thrown in jail? Kinda like that North Korea too, everyone loves he leader there and there are absolutely no signs of anyone displeased. Maybe USA could learn a thing or two from them???????????? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ?" -Wilbur Ross basically.
...That or he had no idea that protests are illegal in SA and was talking out of his ass because he wanted to complain about the people in USA who voice their displeasure at the current regime.
No, he continued to say that even after the interviewer told him that protests are illegal in Saudi Arabia.
He's just like any other authoritarian.
I just don't get how you can miss that fact.
Ironbite-other then you being an authoritarian shitheel.
Former CIA Director John Brennan told the House Intelligence Committee Tuesday that Russia "brazenly interfered in the 2016 election process," despite U.S. efforts to warn it off. Brennan testified in an open session of the committee, one of a handful of congressional committees now investigating Russian meddling in the 2016 election.
Brennan said he told his Russian counterpart, the head of Russia's FSB, last August that if Russia pursued its efforts to interfere, "it would destroy any near-term prospect for improvement in relations" between the two countries. He said Russia denied any attempts to interfere.
In his opening statement, Brennan also recounted how he had briefed congressional leaders in August of last year, including House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and the chairs and ranking members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees about the "full details" of what he knew of Russia's interference in the 2016 election. Brennan said he became convinced last summer that Russia was trying to interfere in the campaign, saying "they were very aggressive."
Brennan said he is "aware of information and intelligence that revealed contacts and interactions between Russian officials and U.S. persons involved in the Trump campaign." Brennan said that concerned him, "because of known Russian efforts to suborn such individuals," and that it raised questions about whether or not the Russians "were able to gain the cooperation of those individuals." Brennan added he didn't know if "collusion existed" between the Russians and those he identified as involved in the Trump campaign.
While Brennan would not specifically identify any individuals associated with the Trump campaign who had contacts with Russian officials and would not opine as to whether there was any collusion or collaboration, he did tell lawmakers why he was concerned about the contacts occurring against the general background of Russian efforts to meddle in the election. Brennan said he's studied Russian intelligence activities over the years, and how Russian intelligence services have been able to get people to betray their country. "Frequently, individuals on a treasonous path do not even realize they're on that path until it gets to be too late," he said.
Brennan said Russia was motivated to back Donald Trump in the presidential election because of a "traditional animus" between Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and Russian President Vladimir Putin. He told committee members there had not been a good relationship between Putin and the Clintons over the years. What's more, Brennan said Putin blamed Hillary Clinton's actions as secretary of state during the Obama administration for domestic disturbances inside Russia. He said Putin was concerned Clinton would be more "rigid" on issues such as human rights if elected president.
But Brennan told the committee he believed that Russia anticipated that Clinton would be the likely winner of the presidential race, and that Russia tried to "damage and bloody" her before Election Day. Had she won, Brennan said, Russia would have continued to attempt to "denigrate her and hurt her" during her presidency. If Russia had collected more information about Clinton that they did not use against her during the campaign, Brennan said they were likely "husbanding it for another day."
Ironbite-Wonder how the Orange Piss Pot is gonna deal with it.
It just struck me that Trump's nicknames for his electoral opponents were a massive case of projection: "Lyin'" (Cruz), "Little" (Rubio), "Crooked" (Clinton) and "Crazy" (Sanders) all describe Trump pretty well.
It just struck me that Trump's nicknames for his electoral opponents were a massive case of projection: "Lyin'" (Cruz), "Little" (Rubio), "Crooked" (Clinton) and "Crazy" (Sanders) all describe Trump pretty well.
And Pocahontas?
It just struck me that Trump's nicknames for his electoral opponents were a massive case of projection: "Lyin'" (Cruz), "Little" (Rubio), "Crooked" (Clinton) and "Crazy" (Sanders) all describe Trump pretty well.
And Pocahontas?
Electoral opponents.
(Insert grumbling that Clinton didn't choose Warren as her running mate... though even then she wouldn't have been Trump's electoral opponent.)
ETA: And technically, Bernie was never Trumps electoral opponent, as he didn't make it to the general to compete with Trump for votes. Looking at how Russia used Bernie, you could make a better argument that he was an electoral ally to Trump, dragging out the primary and fraying feelings, thus hurting Hillary's electability.
So the CBO score for Trumpcare 2.0 is out. There's progress being made. Now only 23 million people will lose healthcare.
http://www.npr.org/2017/05/24/529902300/cbo-republicans-ahca-would-leave-23-million-more-uninsured
Ironbite-that's a legacy to hang your hat on.
Believe it when it happens.
BREAKING: Fox News says crew saw Montana House candidate Greg Gianforte grab Guardian reporter by neck and slam him to the ground.
What happens if this goes to court and he gets convicted?
Still kind of a narrow victory in a state Trump carried by 21 points. I have a feeling had not 2/3rd of the ballot had already been cast, that body slam might have cost him the victory.
Ironbite-ON TO GEORGIA!
The Gianforte/Quist results should add to the Republican panic about 2018, but, unfortunately, I think they'll just blame it on the whole assault thing and pretend there's no problem.
I am so incredibly pissed.
https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/868582312258269184
Trump Targets German Trade, and the South Grimaces
GREER, S.C. — No matter that this small Southern city sits squarely in the middle of Trump country: The president, with his criticism of German trade policy, was setting off alarm bells in the mind of Mayor Richard W. Danner.
Mr. Trump, on his recent trip to Europe, reportedly declared the Germans “bad, very bad” on trade; Greer’s City Hall sits mere miles from a BMW automobile plant that employs about 8,800 people. And so after Mr. Danner read the news here, he quickly organized a call with Chamber of Commerce officials, who on Tuesday brainstormed ways to reassure BMW executives that they in fact considered them to be good. Very good.
“There was a real sense of urgency that we need to be clear to BMW and to anyone else who would listen that we can’t take this kind of rhetoric lightly,” said Mr. Danner, who was elected to Greer’s nonpartisan mayor’s office in 1999. “For us, this isn’t a political issue. This is a matter of livelihoods and of a regional economy and a lot of other things that are going on here.”
...
I believe that the movement against asbestos was led by the mob, because it was often mob-related companies that would do the asbestos removal. Great pressure was put on politicians, and as usual, the politicians relented. Millions of truckloads of this incredible fire-proofing material were taken to special "dump sites" and asbestos was replaced by materials that were supposedly safe but couldn't hold a candle to asbestos in limiting the ravages of fire.
The Art of the Comeback (1997)
If we didn't remove incredibly powerful fire retardant asbestos & replace it with junk that doesn't work, the World Trade Center would never have burned down. [Twitter 17 Oct 2012]
I expect dire consequences for the US. Such as our own despicable tactics being used against us. I am afraid for my life.
Let's be frank, we lost that around the Vietnam era.
Also, the president who used the campaign slogan "they can't lick our Dick" does not seem like a man who intentionally makes double entendres.
Or if you're very, very short.
Sigh the cynical part of me is saying that Comey will say nothing of substance or that Trump did not try to obstruct justice of any kind.
So the Trump Administration has given the go-ahead for Comny to testify in court on Thursday. All well and good. The Orange Piss Pot has also said he's not staying off twitter during the testimony.
Let me say that again. He will be live tweeting the testimony.
Ironbite-I'm surprised he's got any lawyers left at this point.
You know what, I-I-I've never seen hatred like this, and to me they're not even people. It's so, so sad, and I mean morality is just gone, um, morals have flown out the window, we deserve so much better than this as a country and, you know, it's so sad. You see the Democratic Party, they're imploding, they're imploding. They have no message, you see the head of the DNC who's a total whackjob, there's no leadership there, and so what do they do? They become obstructionist because they have no message of their own, they have no solid candidates of their own, they lost the election they should have won because they spent seven times the amount of money that my father spent. They have no message, so what do they try and do? They try and obstruct a great man, they try and obstruct his family, they come after us viciously, and it's truly, truly horrible.
QuoteYou're both committing a basic fallacy: good business = cheap business.QuoteMost businessman will do everything possible to pay the least possible wage.And I don't even call that shitty - that's *what business is*.
Business exists to make money. That's what it's purpose is. If they weren't trying to make money, they'd be a non-profit. A properly run business is going to do everything in it's power to make as much money as possible, because that's it's reason for existing. That's why regulation is good - it gives business an excuse not to do terrible things in the name of a buck.
While cost management is a necessary consideration for any business, so is revenue generation. A person who can generate $100k/year of revenue while getting a $50k/year
salary is more valuable than a person who can generate $40k/year in revenue while getting a $30k/year salary. Both employees in this basic scenario will increase profitability, but if for some reason one of them had to be let go, any manager with a modicum of business skill would keep the first one and lay off the second one despite the second worker 'costing' less.
And this basic example shows why minimum wages are a bad idea. Let's say a minimum wage of $45k/year is mandated. Now that same manager has to let employee number 2 go because he's costing the company more than the revenue he's earning for them. Meanwhile, employee number 1 couldn't care less about the minimum wage since he's already earning more anyway.
So now E2 gets laid off and everyone complains how greedy the company is. Nevermind that the company wouldn't have made that move absent the minimum wage (remember, E2 was still a profitable company asset at 30k/year).
The labor market works just like any other: price level is set by supply and demand. Start messing with that and the people who need the most help - the ones with the least market value - are going to be the ones left out in the cold.
Yeah but a company like Mcdonalds or Walmart which make Billions of dollars in profit a year. Billions. Won't pay their employees living wages or provide basic healthcare, when they can clearly afford to do so. What the fuck do they need billions in profits for? To open more Mcdonalds and Walmarts where they pretty much have them everywhere anyways?
You shouldn't expect to make a living wage as an entry level McDonald's employee.
Living wage screams complacency and lack of hustle. Learn a trade. Climb the ladder.
QuoteIf your business cannot afford to pay your staff a living wage, then that business has failed. its really that simple.
That's an incredibly broad, untrue statement.
More conservative silliness:QuoteYou shouldn't expect to make a living wage as an entry level McDonald's employee.
Living wage screams complacency and lack of hustle. Learn a trade. Climb the ladder.QuoteQuoteIf your business cannot afford to pay your staff a living wage, then that business has failed. its really that simple.
That's an incredibly broad, untrue statement.
QuoteIf your business cannot afford to pay your staff a living wage, then that business has failed. its really that simple.QuoteI'd be interested to hear a situation where a company that cannot afford a living wage is a viable business.
I try to steer very clear from the politics thread but this has to be addressed.
Why should all jobs and businesses have to offer a "living wage"? Are there not people that want a job that do not need to earn a "living wage"? Would it be wrong that a business model focuses on attracting those employees? And if those that need a "living wage" take a job that does not offer one, how is that the business fault and why should the business increase wages because of that. People know what they will be paid when taking a job offer.
As an accountant that used to work with multiple small businesses offering a "living wage" is not always possible. That does not mean it is failed business or non-viable. It just means that this business adds jobs for those that do not require a "living wage". As it is still possible to offer a decent wage to those who do not need a full "living wage" (students, retired, people who want a second job, spouses who husband/wife earn enough, etc). and there is nothing wrong with that. The problem is people taking jobs that were never meant to provide a living wage and then expecting them to.
To [that] point - he mentioned "students, retired, people who want a second job, spouses who husband/wife earn enough". Those are all part time jobs. I don't think anyone is claiming that a teen working 10 hours a week should be able to live on that wage. (Or even 20 hours/week). But if you're putting in your 35-40 hours (depending on how your jurisdiction does breaks)? You should be making enough to make ends meet.
...I don't have enough popcorn for this:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2017/jun/08/james-comey-testimony-senate-hearing-trump-russia-fbi
Yeah but a company like Mcdonalds or Walmart which make Billions of dollars in profit a year. Billions. Won't pay their employees living wages or provide basic healthcare, when they can clearly afford to do so. What the fuck do they need billions in profits for? To open more Mcdonalds and Walmarts where they pretty much have them everywhere anyways?
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-11-25/walmarts-now-ex-ceo-pocket-113-million-pension-6182-times-greater-average-wmt-worker (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-11-25/walmarts-now-ex-ceo-pocket-113-million-pension-6182-times-greater-average-wmt-worker)
113 million pension
billions in profit
Yeah but a company like Mcdonalds or Walmart which make Billions of dollars in profit a year. Billions. Won't pay their employees living wages or provide basic healthcare, when they can clearly afford to do so. What the fuck do they need billions in profits for? To open more Mcdonalds and Walmarts where they pretty much have them everywhere anyways?
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-11-25/walmarts-now-ex-ceo-pocket-113-million-pension-6182-times-greater-average-wmt-worker (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-11-25/walmarts-now-ex-ceo-pocket-113-million-pension-6182-times-greater-average-wmt-worker)Quote113 million pensionQuotebillions in profit
Where does the other order of magnitude go?
I think that the American people have a whole lot of questions... obviously, she was a candidate for president at the time, so she was clearly involved in this whole... fake news...
I think dementia is starting to settle in.
In McDonald's case, the district court based the obstruction of justice enhancement on: (1) Callahan's testimony that, when she visited McDonald while he was incarcerated, he showed her a note urging her not to say anything about the knife; and (2) the letter McDonald wrote to Callahan which stated in part, “I hope and pray to God you did not say anything about a weapon when you were in Iowa. Because it will make it worse on me and you even if they promised not to prosecute you[.]” The district court did not err by finding Callahan's testimony “totally believable,” nor did it err by imposing a two-level increase for obstruction of justice based on McDonald's attempts to prevent Callahan from revealing McDonald carried a concealed knife during the bank robbery.
President Trump said Friday he is "100 percent" willing to testify under oath about his interactions with James Comey in order to dispute the fired FBI director’s claims.
“One hundred percent,” Trump said when asked if he would give a sworn statement to Robert Mueller, the special counsel leading the investigation into Russia’s election interference.
"I would be glad to tell him exactly what I told you,” the president said during a press conference in the White House Rose Garden.
In his first comments since Comey's dramatic testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday, Trump accused the ousted FBI chief of making false statements about their private conversations.
Trump said Comey’s statements vindicated his long-held claims that he did not collude with Russia to tip the election in his favor and that he did not interfere with the federal probe.
“Yesterday showed no collusion, no obstruction,” he said. “But we were very, very happy and, frankly, James Comey confirmed a lot of what I said. And some of the things that he said just weren't true.”
Trump again refused to say whether there are secret recordings of his conversations with Comey, a stunning suggestion he made on Twitter three days after he decided to ax him.
But he indicated the tapes might not exist, telling reporters, “you will be very disappointed when you hear the answer.”
Trump’s offer to sit for an interview with Mueller raises the stakes in the Russia probe.
Comey’s testimony gave the special counsel plenty of material to consider as he investigates whether the president or his associates acted illegally.
Trump said he did not pressure the FBI chief to drop an investigation into his former national security adviser Michael Flynn, reiterating a denial made by his personal lawyer, Marc Kasowitz.
“I didn’t say that,” Trump said of his alleged request of Comey to “let go” of the Flynn probe.
Trump flatly denied that he demanded a pledge of personal loyalty from the former FBI director.
“No,” Trump said. “I hardly know the man, I’m gonna say, 'I want you to pledge allegiance.’ ”
Democrats and some legal experts have cited those actions to accuse Trump of obstruction of justice in the Russia probe.
The question of whether there are tapes of his conversations with Comey has also dogged Trump.
"James Comey better hope that there are no 'tapes' of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!" Trump tweeted on May 12.
To which I say: He's the fucking President. He doesn't get leeway for being new. When your cashier at the grocery store messes up, you lose maybe ten minutes. When the President messes up, people DIE.
Semion Mogilevich. He is considered a strategic threat to national security. He traffics in weapons of mass destruction, nuclear materials, drugs, prostitutes, precious gems, and stolen art.
Vyacheslav “Yaponchik” Ivankov. He was Mogilevich’s lieutenant and resident of Trump Tower and Trump Taj Mahal. The FBI called him the "most dangerous Mobster in America" during a May 15, 1996 congressional hearing. He was gunned down by a sniper on a Moscow street after publicly discussing Mogilevich’s close ties to Putin.
David Bogatin and Michael Markowitz. Identified by U.S. officials as a member of the Semion Mogilevich organized crime family in the 1990s. They owned five condos in Trump Tower.
Dmitry Rybolovlev. He bought Donald Trump’s house for $100 million in 2008. Frequently flew halfway around the world to meet up with Trump in various cities during or after the election.
Felix Komarov. Owned condo in Trump Plaza. Laundered money through a Rolls-Royce dealership with Mr. Ivankov.
Boris Berezovsky. "Godfather of the Kremlin" owned a Trump condo from 2001 - 2008.
Felix Sater. Russian Mobster turned FBI informant who's title is 'Senior advisor to Donald Trump.' He ran Bayrock Group, LLC with Donald Trump and Tevfik Arif.
Tevfik Arif. A Kazakhstan-born former Soviet official. He was charged in 2010 by Turkey for the crime of smuggling underage girls into the country for prostitution purposes. He was also Trump's business partner.
Alimzhan Tokhtakhounov Russian Mobster boss who had been a fugitive after James Comey indicted him for fixing figure skating at the 2002 Winter Olympics. He was eventually found running a global gambling ring one floor below Trump's penthouse apartment. He escaped a second time only to be turn up 3 months later in Moscow as a VIP attendee for Donald Trump's Miss Universe 2013. Guess who was the federal prosecutor who busted up the global gambling ring? Preet Bharara
Helly Nahmad. bought all the units on the 51st floor for more than $18.4 million. He went to prison for about five months in 2014 for leading a high-stakes gambling network.
Vadim Trincher. Ran a connected ring for Russian oligarchs and high stakes gambling network. He “laundered approximately $100 million in proceeds from their gambling operation in Russia and Ukraine through shell companies and bank accounts in Cyprus.”
Alexsander Ivanovich Lebed. National security advisor for Boris Yeltsin who visited met with Trump in 1997 to discuss development projects in Moscow.
Viktor Vekselberg. Former KGB and oligarch who was the second largest shareholder in the Bank of Cyprus. Current Commerce Secretary, Wilbur Ross, was Vice President of Bank of Cyprus.
Oleg Deripaska. His ties go beyond the $10 million dollars he paid Paul Manafort. He's been trying to form connections with powerful Republicans for many years Between 2003-2005, Deripaska paid $560,000 to Bob Dole's lobbying firm for assistance in obtaining a US Visa. During the 2008 Presidential Election, Paul Manafort and Rick Davis (Trump's foreign policy advisor) introduced Oleg to John McCain with hopes of forming a strong relationship.
Rinat Akhmetov. Richest person in Ukraine who is suspected leader of Ukraine Mafia. Personally hired and paid Paul Manafort in 2005 to be advisor for Viktor Yanukovych election campaign.
Dmytro Firtash. Pro-Russian Ukrainian billionaire who is one of Paul Manafort’s biggest clients. By his own admission, he maintains strong ties with a recurring figure on this scene, the reputed Ukrainian/Russian mob boss Semion Mogilevich.
Roy Cohn. He was Trump's long time lawyer, friend, and go-to lawyer for the mob. Some of his clients included the Genovese Family, Gambino Family, and the Red Mafiya. Sometime in the 1980's Roy Cohn introduced Paul Manafort and Roger Stone to Donald Trump.
Michael Cohen. He has been working for The Trump Organization since 2007 and is a member of the Trump World Tower Condominium Board and the Trump Park Avenue Condominium Board. He also has been a confidant of the Russian organized criminality since at least 1999 and has been laundering money for Russian citizens having connections with the Russian mafia.
Ivana Trump. Ivana Trump went into business with two known Russian mobsters, Boris and Michael Vax.
Meanwhile, guess who Joe Biden thinks should run for Senate if Orrin Hatch declines to run again in 2018?
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/337226-biden-encourages-romney-to-launch-senate-bid-report
Mitt Romney.
"It's a big club, and you ain't in it." -- George Carlin
Meanwhile, guess who Joe Biden thinks should run for Senate if Orrin Hatch declines to run again in 2018?
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/337226-biden-encourages-romney-to-launch-senate-bid-report
Mitt Romney.
"It's a big club, and you ain't in it." -- George Carlin
Utah. Don't care.
Meanwhile, guess who Joe Biden thinks should run for Senate if Orrin Hatch declines to run again in 2018?
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/337226-biden-encourages-romney-to-launch-senate-bid-report
Mitt Romney.
"It's a big club, and you ain't in it." -- George Carlin
Utah. Don't care.
But why is Joe Biden encouraging Mitt Romney to run? I could see Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio pushing Romney to run, but Biden? Biden, you would think, should want Romney as far from any position of influence as he could get him; instead, he wants the guy in the US freakin' Senate!
"It's a big club, and you ain't in it." -- George Carlin
It's like... You have gangrene in your foot and someone says that you should amputate it to save your life. But you complain that you want the foot healed and functional, not amputated and the gangrene keeps spreading further and further and soon you are going to have to lose the leg or die.
This is not the perfect metaphor for politics but my point is that you sometimes need to make tactical decisions and vote for someone with a chance of passing even if they are only slightly better than the other alternatives.
Doesn't do much good to say "I did not vote because Hillary wasn't any better than Trump" now does it? Similarly if Romney is at least better than the other guy vote for him rather than wasting your vote in the gerrymandered areas.
Meanwhile, guess who Joe Biden thinks should run for Senate if Orrin Hatch declines to run again in 2018?
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/337226-biden-encourages-romney-to-launch-senate-bid-report
Mitt Romney.
"It's a big club, and you ain't in it." -- George Carlin
Utah. Don't care.
But why is Joe Biden encouraging Mitt Romney to run? I could see Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio pushing Romney to run, but Biden? Biden, you would think, should want Romney as far from any position of influence as he could get him; instead, he wants the guy in the US freakin' Senate!
"It's a big club, and you ain't in it." -- George Carlin
UTAH! Mother fucking Utah! Did I mention UTAH? The most Mormon and Conservative state in the country. Even in a political climate like this, where there is a 15% swing to the left as per FiveThirtyEight, would still leave the leave a typical democrat losing to a standard Republican by almost 25%. Second, unlike Orrin Hatch, Romney is slightly more moderate and has a more extensive track-record of compromising across party lines. Third, Biden is saying it more as a statement about Romney as a person than Romney as a politician. Seriously, you've been on this "let's nit-pick everything about the democrats" for almost a year now and it is getting old.
I visited Utah recently. I was surprised by how nice a place it was, and particularly how good their local beer was when I thought they were basically dry.
Jeb suddenly seems... fine?
I've often wondered why anyone would support Ted Cruz. He seems to be the worst of everything and completely lacking in charisma as a finishing touch.
The special counsel overseeing the investigation into Russia’s role in the 2016 election is interviewing senior intelligence officials as part of a widening probe that now includes an examination of whether President Trump attempted to obstruct justice, officials said
The special investigator that, if I remember correctly, he doesn't have the authority to fire in the first place. So yeah, if he tries to fire him, all it will do is add evidence to the obstruction of justice investigation.
One source said Trump called the House bill “mean, mean, mean” and said, “We need to be more generous, more kind.” The other source said Trump used a vulgarity to describe the House bill and told the senators, “We need to be more generous.”
Because he is a fucking moron who thinks he can one-up Obama by destroying "Obamacare" and replacing it with "Trumpcare". I don't know what is bothering him in the Republican plan and the AP's sources didn't specify it either. It's possible that he genuinely thought that the Republican plan would be more popular than ACA and it's so bad that its horribleness got through his thick skull and limited understanding when it was described to him.
I hope you understand that the knowledge I bring,
Puts me in the position of a god or a king,
'Cause I'm blessed with the gift of the magic touch,
And I wouldn't say that I'm asking for too much.
All you have to do is get down on your knees and pray,
And I promise you the remedy is on its way,
But you can never be like me so don't waste your time,
Because I reign supreme and my position is divine.
What's wrong with being self-possessed?
Nobody satisfied with being second best.
I've got the gift and I know that I'm blessed,
And I've got to get it off my chest.
I'm the biggest,
The best,
Better than the rest,
Better than the rest.
And he's blaming the Deputy AG on this.
Ironbite-I'm not sure he understands what his position in the country is now.
Seriously all these special elections have been in safe Republican strongholds. It's disappointing that we lost but to come so close? Dude that's amazing.
Ironbite-+20 districts almost falling does not bold good fortunes for the +6 districts they'll have to defend come 2018.
I point you to the recent special election for New York's State Assembly, where a district that went +23 for Trump and +37 for the Republican candidate in 2016 went to a Sanders delegate in said special election by 16. These districts could have been flipped.
(And note that New York Republicans these days are not the John Lindsay/Jacob Javits/Nelson Rockefeller-style Republicans of decades past; they are firmly Trump/Tea Party-brand Republicans.)
So that bitch Handel won - repulsive Republican idiot running a little haven for inbreds and morons.
I'd rant about this, but it would just lead to another flaming contest between Queen and myself.
Heller joins GOP Sens. Rand Paul (Ky.), Ron Johnson (Wis.), Mike Lee (Utah) and Ted Cruz (Texas) in
DNC has made it perfectly clear that any senator who votes for this thing risks getting primaried. Might be enough to get a few of the Blue Dogs in line.
Ironbite-but the GOP breaking ranks? Yeah not happening.
Oh, trust me, Ron Johnson's voting for this garbage. He's my senator and from day 1 of Trump, he's done nothing that wasn't in line with the Republican platform or Trump's fascism.
Bethany Kozma is a lovely, sweet woman who just happens to believe that girls with penises just ought not to be showering next to girls without penises.
To put it simply, a boy claiming gender confusion must now be allowed in the same shower, bathroom, or locker room with my daughter under the president’s transgender policies. When I learned that predators could abuse these new policies to hurt children in school lockers, shelters, pool showers, or other vulnerable public places like remote bathrooms in national parks, I realized I had to do something.
Can someone explain this emoluments clause and what it means to Trump?
No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.
Yeah but is anyone actually going to do anything about it?
Paul Ryan responded to Trump committing obvious obstruction of justice by excusing his behavior as him being new to politics.
MICHAEL SAVAGE (HOST): This guy hates America! Hates us! Hates what we stand for, and you elected him, you morons, you. Well you know, Hitler said it best when he said the masses are stupid, only emotion and hatred can keep them controlled. Boy, did Obama know that. Hitler said that only emotion and hatred can keep the masses controlled. Obama sure played on it, almost from the beginning.
HAH!
https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2017/07/05/hitler-said-it-best-trump-ally-michael-savage-quotes-hitler-condemn-obama/217146QuoteMICHAEL SAVAGE (HOST): This guy hates America! Hates us! Hates what we stand for, and you elected him, you morons, you. Well you know, Hitler said it best when he said the masses are stupid, only emotion and hatred can keep them controlled. Boy, did Obama know that. Hitler said that only emotion and hatred can keep the masses controlled. Obama sure played on it, almost from the beginning.
...Is it just me or does it seem like Trump is the one who is using hate to unite his supporters?
HAH!
https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2017/07/05/hitler-said-it-best-trump-ally-michael-savage-quotes-hitler-condemn-obama/217146QuoteMICHAEL SAVAGE (HOST): This guy hates America! Hates us! Hates what we stand for, and you elected him, you morons, you. Well you know, Hitler said it best when he said the masses are stupid, only emotion and hatred can keep them controlled. Boy, did Obama know that. Hitler said that only emotion and hatred can keep the masses controlled. Obama sure played on it, almost from the beginning.
...Is it just me or does it seem like Trump is the one who is using hate to unite his supporters?
President Trump’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., was promised damaging information about Hillary Clinton before agreeing to meet with a Kremlin-connected Russian lawyer during the 2016 campaign, according to three advisers to the White House briefed on the meeting and two others with knowledge of it.
The meeting was also attended by his campaign chairman at the time, Paul J. Manafort, and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner. Mr. Manafort and Mr. Kushner only recently disclosed the meeting, though not its content, in confidential government documents described to The New York Times.
After pleasantries were exchanged, the woman stated that she had information that individuals connected to Russia were funding the Democratic National Committee and supporting Ms. Clinton. Her statements were vague, ambiguous and made no sense. No details or supporting information was provided or even offered. It quickly became clear that she had no meaningful information.
* * *
It became clear to me that [repealing the Magnitsky Act] was the true agenda all along and that the claims of potentially helpful information were a pretext for the meeting.
....wrong topic?Chris Uhlmann.
The New York Times lights a fuse...
Pipe-bomb (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/09/us/politics/trump-russia-kushner-manafort.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur)Quote from: The New York TimesPresident Trump’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., was promised damaging information about Hillary Clinton before agreeing to meet with a Kremlin-connected Russian lawyer during the 2016 campaign, according to three advisers to the White House briefed on the meeting and two others with knowledge of it.
The meeting was also attended by his campaign chairman at the time, Paul J. Manafort, and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner. Mr. Manafort and Mr. Kushner only recently disclosed the meeting, though not its content, in confidential government documents described to The New York Times.
Now, to be fair, the Trump Team's account of the meeting is slightly different. Well, it's actually NOT different, they admit to most of it, but defend themselves by adding:Quote from: The Only Human Being that our President can Legally put his Name onAfter pleasantries were exchanged, the woman stated that she had information that individuals connected to Russia were funding the Democratic National Committee and supporting Ms. Clinton. Her statements were vague, ambiguous and made no sense. No details or supporting information was provided or even offered. It quickly became clear that she had no meaningful information.
* * *
It became clear to me that [repealing the Magnitsky Act] was the true agenda all along and that the claims of potentially helpful information were a pretext for the meeting.
Nevertheless, this is big for three reasons:
1. This was not reported by anyone on applications for security clearance until recently (when Kushner updated his application a couple weeks ago).
2. This is the first time that we have a reported, detailed meeting between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin for purposes of collusion to influence the election.
3. While what was discussed at the meeting is in dispute, it is not in dispute that the meeting arose because the Trump Campaign wanted to obtain damaging information on Secretary Clinton (illegally hacked by the Russian Military apparatus) from a Kremlin agent. At the very least, high-ranking members of the Trump campaign were open to collusion with a foreign power to help elect Casino Mussolini.
ETA- Oh, and in other news, Trump discussed forming a cyber-security task force with Putin for purposes of ensuring our elections are safe. I don't know whether I should be flippant and add that it is akin to a fox guarding a hen-house or serious and point out Russia has a history of using apps, games, and other innocuous coding to trojan-horse malware and spyware into computers of unsuspecting users.
WASHINGTON — Before arranging a meeting with a Kremlin-connected Russian lawyer he believed would offer him compromising information about Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump Jr. was informed in an email that the material was part of a Russian government effort to aid his father’s candidacy, according to three people with knowledge of the email.
Alan Futerfas, the lawyer for the younger Mr. Trump, said his client had done nothing wrong but pledged to work with investigators if contacted.
Mr. Goldstone represents the Russian pop star Emin Agalarov, whose father was President Trump’s business partner in bringing the Miss Universe pageant to Moscow in 2013. In an interview Monday, Mr. Goldstone said he was asked by Mr. Agalarov to set up the meeting with Donald Trump Jr. and the Russian lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya.
* * *
In the interview, he said it was his understanding that Ms. Veselnitskaya was simply a “private citizen” for whom Mr. Agalarov wanted to do a favor. He also said he did not know whether Mr. Agalarov’s father, Aras Agalarov, a Moscow real estate tycoon known to be close to President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, was involved.
They don't need Trump to take down the ACA--Pence will sign it fine. Plus, it would be better for them to take down Trump now, rather than after the midterms, because any new VP must be confirmed by both the House and the Senate (simple majority threshold in the Senate) and they could get someone crazier in there now than if the Dems happen to retake part of Congress in 2018. (And if the Dems stonewall a new VP completely, that would leave the Speaker of the House as next in line, and I doubt the GOP would want Pelosi to be next in line, never mind whomever might replace her.)
I think even the GOP spin machine would find it hard to pin ACA repeal (and tax "reform") entirely on Trump.
They don't need Trump to take down the ACA--Pence will sign it fine. Plus, it would be better for them to take down Trump now, rather than after the midterms, because any new VP must be confirmed by both the House and the Senate (simple majority threshold in the Senate) and they could get someone crazier in there now than if the Dems happen to retake part of Congress in 2018. (And if the Dems stonewall a new VP completely, that would leave the Speaker of the House as next in line, and I doubt the GOP would want Pelosi to be next in line, never mind whomever might replace her.)
I think even the GOP spin machine would find it hard to pin ACA repeal (and tax "reform") entirely on Trump.
This all assumes Pence isn't complicit to any collusion. He said numerous times that there was no contact between the campaign and Russia, including multiple times about disgraced Lieutenant General Michael Flynn. Either Pence (1) lied about the involvement with intent to mislead or (2) spoke repeatedly on shit he knew nothing about nor cared to fact-check. As the evidence piles up like bricks in a wall, number 2 grows harder to believe.
It'd be nice for them to be back in old-fashioned bible-thumping hypocrite territory as opposed to barking mad libertine land but Pence doesn't have clean hands with the Russia shenanigans. (http://billmoyers.com/story/timeline-pences-role-white-houses-russia-related-mess/) If the orange asshole goes down he might be able to drag Pence with him.They don't need Trump to take down the ACA--Pence will sign it fine. Plus, it would be better for them to take down Trump now, rather than after the midterms, because any new VP must be confirmed by both the House and the Senate (simple majority threshold in the Senate) and they could get someone crazier in there now than if the Dems happen to retake part of Congress in 2018. (And if the Dems stonewall a new VP completely, that would leave the Speaker of the House as next in line, and I doubt the GOP would want Pelosi to be next in line, never mind whomever might replace her.)
I think even the GOP spin machine would find it hard to pin ACA repeal (and tax "reform") entirely on Trump.
This all assumes Pence isn't complicit to any collusion. He said numerous times that there was no contact between the campaign and Russia, including multiple times about disgraced Lieutenant General Michael Flynn. Either Pence (1) lied about the involvement with intent to mislead or (2) spoke repeatedly on shit he knew nothing about nor cared to fact-check. As the evidence piles up like bricks in a wall, number 2 grows harder to believe.
The GOP will gladly throw Trump under a bus since their establishment resents him for hijacking their party. But they like Pence. It doesn't matter how much evidence mounts that he was complicit; they're not going to get rid of him.
I WILL EAT YOUR SOUL!You like chewing on old-man hippy feet? Ew!
The GOP will gladly throw Trump under a bus since their establishment resents him for hijacking their party. But they like Pence. It doesn't matter how much evidence mounts that he was complicit; they're not going to get rid of him.
And we get President Paul Ryan who's already concluded that the position doesn't grant him as much power as Speaker.
Ironbite-and he didn't even want that role either.
Trump tries to fire him, and he'd look guiltier than Nixon.
It is amazing the GOP leadership looks at these morons and thinks "yeah they'll keep power in four years".
Ironbite-amazingly short sighted.
The problem is that political tenability is largely determined by the electoral victors; and the Republicans, if they are the beneficiaries of a rigged midterm vote, will have the authority to decide if their own power is tenable and if it isn’t. This is a win-at-all-costs party that ruthlessly suppresses votes and gerrymanders districts; has brazenly stolen a supreme court seat; has set up an election integrity commission to combat the nonexistent problem of massive voter fraud; and (as we’re seeing in the attempted passage of the American health care act) has abandoned the basic norms of truthfulness and good faith in congressional cooperation, on which the American political system depends. If Russia is ready and willing to alter vote tallies in favour of the GOP, does anyone really believe that Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan, Mike Pence or Donald Trump would voluntarily stop it?
...
Were a de facto GOP-Moscow alliance once again to win a national US election, the incentive to repeat and, if necessary, strengthen the formula in 2020 would be even more powerful. It goes without saying that America’s old experiment with democracy will, by this point, have come to a complete halt.
The Trumpcare vote is such a close call that the Republicans don't dare to try it until John McCain is back from hospital...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2017/jul/17/john-mccain-healthcare-trump-made-in-america-week?CMP=fb_gu
"Most Republicans were loyal, terrific & worked really hard," Trump tweeted Tuesday morning. "We were let down by all of the Democrats and a few Republicans."
"The core of this bill is unworkable," Schumer said in a statement. He said Republicans "should start from scratch and work with Democrats on a bill that lowers premiums, provides long-term stability to the markets and improves our health-care system."
Less than a day after Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said the Senate will vote to repeal Obamacare without providing a replacement, his plan is dead.
Three Republicans announced Tuesday that they won’t vote for a procedural step to take up the bill ― and that’s all it takes to kill it. Those senators are Susan Collins (Maine), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Shelley Moore Capito (W.Va.). Sen. Rob Portman (Ohio) also raised concerns about a repeal-only plan increasing uncertainty in the marketplace and leading to higher premiums and deductibles.
McConnell has now failed three times in the last month to pass a bill to gut Obamacare, otherwise known as the Affordable Care Act, something Republicans have vowed to do for seven years. The crux of the problem: Moderate Republicans want to keep key pieces of the law in place and aren’t comfortable throwing millions of people off health care, while conservative Republicans want to throw out the whole law. There’s not a lot of middle ground. Democrats have been cut out of negotiations entirely.
On another note, given how Trump's been treating the wives of foreign leaders (see: Brigitte Macron, Agata Kornhauser), I can't wait to see how he reacts to meeting Kathleen Wynne and her partner:
Apparently Steve Bannon called Paul Ryan "a limp-dicked motherfucker who was born in a petri dish at the Heritage Foundation."
Apparently Steve Bannon called Paul Ryan "a limp-dicked motherfucker who was born in a petri dish at the Heritage Foundation."
Didn't he also call Jared a "cuck" at one point.
The guy's a real piece of shit.
I love how the GOP is trying to blame their ineptitude on the Democrats. You're the idiots with all of the power. You don't need the democrats to pass your dumb legislation, yet you somehow fail.
I love how the GOP is trying to blame their ineptitude on the Democrats. You're the idiots with all of the power. You don't need the democrats to pass your dumb legislation, yet you somehow fail.
Not even that, they tried to pass their stuff without democratic involvement, haphazardously believing they could just pass whatever they wanted and spin it as a win. At one point, McConnell was trying to rope his party to vote yes by saying that a no vote meant the GOP would have to negotiate with the democrats.
Breaking, McCain has been diagnosed with a brain tumor. I disagree with him politically, but him telling the woman at the rally that Obama was not a muslim terrorist, but a decent family man was one of the most noble things that a Republican has done in the last 10 years. I wish him a speedy recovery.
Breaking, McCain has been diagnosed with a brain tumor. I disagree with him politically, but him telling the woman at the rally that Obama was not a muslim terrorist, but a decent family man was one of the most noble things that a Republican has done in the last 10 years. I wish him a speedy recovery.
I wish him a speedy and full recovery because I want to see him lose at the ballot box in 2022.
I'm a sociopath and that...was cold blooded. I'm legit impressed, Dpareja. Did not know you had it in you.
So you want him to get better so as that our people can politically humiliate him and send him packing out of Washington, the sheer humiliation and stress from how ugly and personal American elections can be these days might just as well end his life too.
Well, at any rate, I've got a new appreciation for you.
We should hold people who run for Senate to a higher standard. 6 years is a long time. Some people here arguing to take that away from the People and give it back to State houses. That's disturbing. If you trust them more then We The People, then you're probably a partisan minded individual.
Obama has class:
(http://i.imgur.com/TiuWmYI.png)
The appointment of Mr. Scaramucci, a favorite of Mr. Trump’s earliest campaign supporters, was backed by the president’s daughter Ivanka, his son-in-law and adviser Jared Kushner and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, the officials said.
(https://i.redditmedia.com/nFYuFVGgfG8gfyxmO7HFz7VQtW3SoIkJuZfAXt33FSw.png?w=411&s=4fc5780014498caa000206e7f8d3b68b)
BUTT. HER. E. MALES.
This stopped being fun a while ago but he keeps on going on about the elections and Clinton hoping that it is enough to distract from his own scandal.
Oh well, his new plan of changing the first amendment might work as a distraction though: https://theweek.com/speedreads/695695/reince-priebus-admits-trump-administration-looked-into-changing-first-amendment
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of [Congress'] next Session.
Congrats to everyone who protest voted.
Ironbite-this is on you.
After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow......
BUT HE HELD A FLAG!!!!!111!!!!!!!!!!
Anyone who didn't see this shit coming is a fucking moron.
Apparently this was at Kelly's request so the new guy is already bringing order to the White House.
Ironbite-see if it lasts the week.
Cause it imposes sanctions on Iran as well, IIRC
I am strongly supportive of the sanctions on Russia included in this bill. It is unacceptable for Russia to interfere in our elections here in the United States, or anywhere around the world. There must be consequences for such actions. I also have deep concerns about the policies and activities of the Iranian government, especially their support for the brutal Assad regime in Syria. I have voted for sanctions on Iran in the past, and I believe sanctions were an important tool for bringing Iran to the negotiating table. But I believe that these new sanctions could endanger the very important nuclear agreement that was signed between the United States, its partners and Iran in 2015. That is not a risk worth taking, particularly at a time of heightened tension between Iran and Saudi Arabia and its allies. I think the United States must play a more even-handed role in the Middle East, and find ways to address not only Iran's activities, but also Saudi Arabia's decades-long support for radical extremism.
Because he didn't want to be embarrassed when Congress overrode the veto.
Keep in mind that it was just a few Freedom Caucus types in the House, and Paul and Sanders in the Senate, who voted against it.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/jim-justice-west-virginia-democrat-republican-trump-1.4234938
Gov. Jim Justice of West Virginia is switching parties from Democratic to Republican.
EDIT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXWg3oPkWyY
Audio of the phone call in which Anthony Scaramucci insulted everyone else.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/jim-justice-west-virginia-democrat-republican-trump-1.4234938
Gov. Jim Justice of West Virginia is switching parties from Democratic to Republican.
EDIT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXWg3oPkWyY
Audio of the phone call in which Anthony Scaramucci insulted everyone else.
Wanna know something about the West Virgina governor? He was a Republican up to 2015 when he switched sides to run as a Dem in 2016.
Ironbite-FUN!
Astounding to see 'liberals' place their hopes in Bush appointee Mueller (who tried to frame me in 2011).
Know your history:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DGeFeoaXUAEoqQ8.jpg) (https://twitter.com/JulianAssange/status/893831868562493447)
We warned you
(https://pbs.twimg.com/card_img/890848860758839300/6bXCJ1av?format=jpg&name=600x314)
Opinion l If Donald Trump Targets Journalists, Thank Obama (https://twitter.com/JulianAssange/status/893502762155216896)
Between Trump's directness & leaks the Trump admin is the most transparent in living memory--despite its policies. Good or bad?
68% Good
32% Bad (https://twitter.com/JulianAssange/status/893482088535539713)
We warned you
(https://pbs.twimg.com/card_img/890848860758839300/6bXCJ1av?format=jpg&name=600x314)
Opinion l If Donald Trump Targets Journalists, Thank Obama (https://twitter.com/JulianAssange/status/893502762155216896)
Quote from: Julian AssangeWe warned you
(https://pbs.twimg.com/card_img/890848860758839300/6bXCJ1av?format=jpg&name=600x314)
Opinion l If Donald Trump Targets Journalists, Thank Obama (https://twitter.com/JulianAssange/status/893502762155216896)
What?? How is Trump targeting Journalists (which he's now doing with Sessions threatening to prosecute journalists over leaks) Obama's fault? Is this a "thanks Obama" joke that's gone over my head or something?
What?? How is Trump targeting Journalists (which he's now doing with Sessions threatening to prosecute journalists over leaks) Obama's fault? Is this a "thanks Obama" joke that's gone over my head or something?
Trump does not deserve a free pass for any of his horrible policies.
Neither does Obama.
Nor Bush Jr.
Nor Clinton.
Nor Bush Sr.
Nor Reagan...
Trump does not deserve a free pass for any of his horrible policies.
Neither does Obama.
Nor Bush Jr.
Nor Clinton.
Nor Bush Sr.
Nor Reagan...
But to blame Obama for Trump's major transgressions because of Obama's less serious transgressions is intellectually dishonest. What you say sounds good on paper, but it just provides defense for Assange's indefensible defense of Trump (but of course, Assange is just being kind to Trump...again).
So Kim Jung Un is threatening to attack Guam. He can't be that stupid right? They have a large army but with cold war technology they would be decimated. If they attack first I doubt China is going to aid them. Our idiot and chief can't keep his fucking mouth shut either. Can't we just put those two fat heads in a boxing ring together?
So Kim Jung Un is threatening to attack Guam. He can't be that stupid right? They have a large army but with cold war technology they would be decimated.I'd say the US military will destroy far more than just 1/10th of their North Korean counterpart if given half a chance.
Guam.
He's threatening Guam.
I doubt most Americans even know what Guam is, or somehow think he's threatening their guacamole.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/claudiakoerner/how-a-pro-trump-twitter-scheme-fell-apart-after-a-retweet?utm_term=.dgb4Xbr9l#.mp0ZPK9Ek
...Does Trump even have real supporters at this point? Is it just bots and trolls and GOPers who are waiting for the moment to turn against him and give the throne to Pence?
QuoteStill mad Hilary lost huh? (Originally "Liberal raging still?")QuoteThat's horrible and pretty disrespectful to a sitting president.The chicken's pretty hilarious... he disrespects huge parts of the country/world population, he can deal with an inflatable chicken. When you're a public figure, it happens.
So rather than a Russian spy hacking the DNC there was a Russian spy or USAian traitor in the DNC?Or just a plain old party operative with an axe to grind.
So rather than a Russian spy hacking the DNC there was a Russian spy or USAian traitor in the DNC?Or just a plain old party operative with an axe to grind.
It's entirely possible that the leak had nothing to do with Russia but Russia was still looking for ways to undermine the Clinton campaign. Certainly the Trump campaign took up the Russian offer to get intelligence from them for this stated purpose.
Let me speak about immigration. Yes. Let me speak about immigration. The right and obligation of a sovereign nation to control its borders is beyond debate. We should not have here a single illegal immigrant.
But the question of immigration is broader than that, and let me specific. A family from Mexico arrives this morning legally has as much right to the American Dream as the direct descents of the Founding Fathers.
The Republican Party is broad and inclusive. It represents -- The Republican Party is broad and inclusive. It represents many streams of opinion and many points of view.
But if there's anyone who has mistakenly attached themselves to our party in the belief that we are not open to citizens of every race and religion, then let me remind you, tonight this hall belongs to the Party of Lincoln. And the exits which are clearly marked are for you to walk out of as I stand this ground without compromise.
...
The Constitution of the United States mandates equal protection under the law. This is not code language for racism. It is plain speaking against it.
And the guiding light in my administration will be that in this country, we have no rank order by birth, no claim to favoritism by race, no expectation of judgment other than it be even-handed. And we cannot guarantee the outcome, but we shall guarantee the opportunity in America.
And then he was right back on blaming the media for not giving him enough credit.
Ironbite-no clue and this man supposedly has amazing charisma.
This shit is getting scary, and it's only beginning.
Now there's 9 more White Nationalist Rallies being held this weekend, and Trump is refusing to condemn this hate group. Instead still placing blame on both sides.
Now the term Alt Left is being thrown around as if that's a thing.
So Trump just gave a press conference in which, talking about Charlottesville, he said, "there are very fine people on both sides..."
In other words, the President of the US just said on live international TV that there are very fine Nazis.
I have a question for you, America: WTF??!!
I blame the DNC (http://observer.com/2016/10/wikileaks-reveals-dnc-elevated-trump-to-help-clinton/).
I blame the DNC (http://observer.com/2016/10/wikileaks-reveals-dnc-elevated-trump-to-help-clinton/).
Papadopolous sent the first email to seven campaign advisers in March 2016 with the subject line "Meeting with Russian Leadership - Including Putin." His requests were reportedly met with hesitancy from multiple campaign officials, including retired Navy Rear Adm. Charles Kubic, who voiced concerns about violating both US sanctions on Russia and the Logan Act, a law forbidding US citizens from negotiating with foreign governments without authorization.
Paul Manafort, Trump's campaign chairman and a current subject in the Russia investigation, also expressed concerns about the proposal and rejected Papadopoulos' request for a meeting between Trump and Russian officials in May 2016, according to The Post.
I blame the DNC (http://observer.com/2016/10/wikileaks-reveals-dnc-elevated-trump-to-help-clinton/).
They overestimated the decency of a near-majority of the population. The professional politicians were insufficiently jaded.
Where can I find stats on their employment? I'm curious how many Dems turned in their six-week notice when they realized this.
I blame the DNC (http://observer.com/2016/10/wikileaks-reveals-dnc-elevated-trump-to-help-clinton/).
They overestimated the decency of a near-majority of the population. The professional politicians were insufficiently jaded.
Where can I find stats on their employment? I'm curious how many Dems turned in their six-week notice when they realized this.
Can we please stop with this "Trump voters are bad people" nonsense? It's about as helpful as a hole in the head.
I believe it is false and unhelpful to declare that every single person who voted for Trump to be completely, utterly, irredeemably evil. Most humans are morally complicated and posses a mixture of good and bad traits (ie my dad was a loving father who dedicated his life to help others as a parole officer because he truly wanted to help others. He was also a homophobe who told me when I first asked what a gay person was that they were selfish people who didn't follow God's plan).
But to say that Trump voters did something morally wrong and bare responsibility for it does not amount to that. You can say that someone has done wrong without claiming them to be 100% evil.
I believe it is false and unhelpful to declare that every single person who voted for Trump to be completely, utterly, irredeemably evil. Most humans are morally complicated and posses a mixture of good and bad traits (ie my dad was a loving father who dedicated his life to help others as a parole officer because he truly wanted to help others. He was also a homophobe who told me when I first asked what a gay person was that they were selfish people who didn't follow God's plan).
But to say that Trump voters did something morally wrong and bare responsibility for it does not amount to that. You can say that someone has done wrong without claiming them to be 100% evil.
Is it morally right to vote for a candidate for whose favor the game was rigged (http://observer.com/2017/05/ro-khanna-admits-democratic-primares-rigged-for-hillary-clinton/)? Maybe I should go around telling off Hillary voters for "supporting corruption".
A lot of Americans were caught between a rock and a hard place. There were many who either stayed home or . And I don't blame them. After the revelations that the DNC rigged the game in Hillary's favor, I don't think we have any right to judge people who didn't vote for her.
How many of you understand why so many people voted for Trump? How many of you have looked more deeply into the matter? I've looked, and if I'm honest? For a lot of these people, I can understand, even sympathize with why they did it, even if I don't like the result. Instead of looking down on people for exercising their democratic rights in a way we didn't like, I think we should try to understand their grievances and motivations.
(https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/11/15/5-things-you-need-to-know-about-how-third-party-candidates-did-in-2016/[/url)
I believe it is false and unhelpful to declare that every single person who voted for Trump to be completely, utterly, irredeemably evil. Most humans are morally complicated and posses a mixture of good and bad traits (ie my dad was a loving father who dedicated his life to help others as a parole officer because he truly wanted to help others. He was also a homophobe who told me when I first asked what a gay person was that they were selfish people who didn't follow God's plan).
But to say that Trump voters did something morally wrong and bare responsibility for it does not amount to that. You can say that someone has done wrong without claiming them to be 100% evil.
Is it morally right to vote for a candidate for whose favor the game was rigged (http://observer.com/2017/05/ro-khanna-admits-democratic-primares-rigged-for-hillary-clinton/)? Maybe I should go around telling off Hillary voters for "supporting corruption".
A lot of Americans were caught between a rock and a hard place. There were many who either stayed home or . And I don't blame them. After the revelations that the DNC rigged the game in Hillary's favor, I don't think we have any right to judge people who didn't vote for her.
How many of you understand why so many people voted for Trump? How many of you have looked more deeply into the matter? I've looked, and if I'm honest? For a lot of these people, I can understand, even sympathize with why they did it, even if I don't like the result. Instead of looking down on people for exercising their democratic rights in a way we didn't like, I think we should try to understand their grievances and motivations.
(https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/11/15/5-things-you-need-to-know-about-how-third-party-candidates-did-in-2016/[/url)
I believe it is false and unhelpful to declare that every single person who voted for Trump to be completely, utterly, irredeemably evil. Most humans are morally complicated and posses a mixture of good and bad traits (ie my dad was a loving father who dedicated his life to help others as a parole officer because he truly wanted to help others. He was also a homophobe who told me when I first asked what a gay person was that they were selfish people who didn't follow God's plan).
But to say that Trump voters did something morally wrong and bare responsibility for it does not amount to that. You can say that someone has done wrong without claiming them to be 100% evil.
Is it morally right to vote for a candidate for whose favor the game was rigged (http://observer.com/2017/05/ro-khanna-admits-democratic-primares-rigged-for-hillary-clinton/)? Maybe I should go around telling off Hillary voters for "supporting corruption".
A lot of Americans were caught between a rock and a hard place. There were many who either stayed home or . And I don't blame them. After the revelations that the DNC rigged the game in Hillary's favor, I don't think we have any right to judge people who didn't vote for her.
How many of you understand why so many people voted for Trump? How many of you have looked more deeply into the matter? I've looked, and if I'm honest? For a lot of these people, I can understand, even sympathize with why they did it, even if I don't like the result. Instead of looking down on people for exercising their democratic rights in a way we didn't like, I think we should try to understand their grievances and motivations.
(https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/11/15/5-things-you-need-to-know-about-how-third-party-candidates-did-in-2016/[/url)
I believe it is false and unhelpful to declare that every single person who voted for Trump to be completely, utterly, irredeemably evil. Most humans are morally complicated and posses a mixture of good and bad traits (ie my dad was a loving father who dedicated his life to help others as a parole officer because he truly wanted to help others. He was also a homophobe who told me when I first asked what a gay person was that they were selfish people who didn't follow God's plan).
But to say that Trump voters did something morally wrong and bare responsibility for it does not amount to that. You can say that someone has done wrong without claiming them to be 100% evil.
Is it morally right to vote for a candidate for whose favor the game was rigged (http://observer.com/2017/05/ro-khanna-admits-democratic-primares-rigged-for-hillary-clinton/)? Maybe I should go around telling off Hillary voters for "supporting corruption".
A lot of Americans were caught between a rock and a hard place. There were many who either stayed home or . And I don't blame them. After the revelations that the DNC rigged the game in Hillary's favor, I don't think we have any right to judge people who didn't vote for her.
How many of you understand why so many people voted for Trump? How many of you have looked more deeply into the matter? I've looked, and if I'm honest? For a lot of these people, I can understand, even sympathize with why they did it, even if I don't like the result. Instead of looking down on people for exercising their democratic rights in a way we didn't like, I think we should try to understand their grievances and motivations.
(https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/11/15/5-things-you-need-to-know-about-how-third-party-candidates-did-in-2016/[/url)
I have no idea what that has to do with what I said.
Democrats maybe rigging the primary for Hillary doesn't have anything to do with why people supported Trump, that didn't come into it until well after Trump had the republican nomination. There were 16 other republican candidates to choose from, all of whom, even Ted Cruz, would have been better then Donald. But Donald made howling Racism central to his campaign and that pulled him to the front of the race.
In fact you know what Direct Question: Do you agree or disagree that the grievances and motivations of many Trump voters were racist?
And for the record I take that "Hillary was corrupt" about as seriously as I take the bit from Radiation that she voted Trump because Hillary said something racist. Donald has a long and well documented history of staggering financial corruption from stealing money from his charities to running a fraudulent "university" if corruption was the problem Hillary was obviously the lesser evil.
I believe it is false and unhelpful to declare that every single person who voted for Trump to be completely, utterly, irredeemably evil. Most humans are morally complicated and posses a mixture of good and bad traits (ie my dad was a loving father who dedicated his life to help others as a parole officer because he truly wanted to help others. He was also a homophobe who told me when I first asked what a gay person was that they were selfish people who didn't follow God's plan).
But to say that Trump voters did something morally wrong and bare responsibility for it does not amount to that. You can say that someone has done wrong without claiming them to be 100% evil.
Is it morally right to vote for a candidate for whose favor the game was rigged (http://observer.com/2017/05/ro-khanna-admits-democratic-primares-rigged-for-hillary-clinton/)? Maybe I should go around telling off Hillary voters for "supporting corruption".
A lot of Americans were caught between a rock and a hard place. There were many who either stayed home or . And I don't blame them. After the revelations that the DNC rigged the game in Hillary's favor, I don't think we have any right to judge people who didn't vote for her.
How many of you understand why so many people voted for Trump? How many of you have looked more deeply into the matter? I've looked, and if I'm honest? For a lot of these people, I can understand, even sympathize with why they did it, even if I don't like the result. Instead of looking down on people for exercising their democratic rights in a way we didn't like, I think we should try to understand their grievances and motivations.
(https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/11/15/5-things-you-need-to-know-about-how-third-party-candidates-did-in-2016/[/url)
Nazi apologia is completely revolting.
The right choice is never the Nazi. I'll vote lizard over wizard any day, and those that don't cannot be held to be unaccountable for their choices. We do not need to understand the motivations of these people. Voting Trump, heiling him in Nazi style, and supporting white supremacy makes abjectly unremarkable people feel better. That is it. All there is to understand.
They're afraid of the world leaving them behind, and indeed. The world should leave these walking slime molds behind.
Is saying "You did something morally wrong and bare responsibility for it" the same thing as condemning someone?
If you thought Trump was a better option for President of the United States than Hilary Clinton, you are an idiot, and/or evil.
Is saying "You did something morally wrong and bare responsibility for it" the same thing as condemning someone?
Not quite, but there are some people (not you, from what I can tell) who cross that line. Such as our resident sociopath.
Lana, can you explain to me how can someone look at Trump during the campaign and not see the racism, sexism and incompetence? I mean really, his own words, his own actions are all the proof one needs.
Oh FFS why is it so bloody important to protect the fee fees of people who voted for someone knowing them to be a racist, rapey, sexist, unstable, chronically stupid douchebag?If you thought Trump was a better option for President of the United States than Hilary Clinton, you are an idiot, and/or evil.
Thank you for proving my point.
Oh FFS why is it so bloody important to protect the fee fees of people who voted for someone knowing them to be a racist, rapey, sexist, unstable, chronically stupid douchebag?If you thought Trump was a better option for President of the United States than Hilary Clinton, you are an idiot, and/or evil.
Thank you for proving my point.
Stop it Lana, it's political correctness gone mad!
You mean:Oh FFS why is it so bloody important to protect the fee fees of people who voted for someone knowing them to be a racist, rapey, sexist, unstable, chronically stupid douchebag?If you thought Trump was a better option for President of the United States than Hilary Clinton, you are an idiot, and/or evil.
Thank you for proving my point.
Stop it Lana, it's political correctness gone mad!
Haven't you ever considered why so many people voted for Trump? Have you wondered why rural America won Trump the election?
People like to talk about "red states" and "blue states", but looking at the county level gives a more complete picture.
(https://d26horl2n8pviu.cloudfront.net/link_data_pictures/images/000/120/671/shared_link/265d59e5da54c57026d8b4c8e1532e10.jpg?1479396240)
Trump overwhelmingly won rural communities. This is because they're in awful straits, and the country doesn't seem to care about them. To a lot of these people, a vote for Trump was a means to be heard. Everyone lashes out when they don't have a voice. And you want to continue dumping on these people? When you find yourself in a hole, maybe you should stop digging.
Oh FFS why is it so bloody important to protect the fee fees of people who voted for someone knowing them to be a racist, rapey, sexist, unstable, chronically stupid douchebag?If you thought Trump was a better option for President of the United States than Hilary Clinton, you are an idiot, and/or evil.
Thank you for proving my point.
Stop it Lana, it's political correctness gone mad!
Haven't you ever considered why so many people voted for Trump? Have you wondered why rural America won Trump the election?
People like to talk about "red states" and "blue states", but looking at the county level gives a more complete picture.
(https://d26horl2n8pviu.cloudfront.net/link_data_pictures/images/000/120/671/shared_link/265d59e5da54c57026d8b4c8e1532e10.jpg?1479396240)
Trump overwhelmingly won rural communities. This is because they're in awful straits, and the country doesn't seem to care about them. To a lot of these people, a vote for Trump was a means to be heard. Everyone lashes out when they don't have a voice. And you want to continue dumping on these people? When you find yourself in a hole, maybe you should stop digging.
Hypocrisy oozes from [Trump] like pus from a septic infection.
They are just so utterly desperate to have someone to give them a solution that doesn't require them to change who and what they truly are.And what exactly is it that they could change about themselves that would give them prosperity? Honestly, I'd love to hear what you think will bring back a functional economy to the American countryside.
1) Actually look into a proper and functional education. There is a conscious and notable trend toward detest and distrust of college in these people, viewing it as a "liberal institution" or some such. They simply cannot acquire functionality without going to a reputable college.Well, that and they simply can't afford it. Education in the states isn't exactly cheap. Not to mention, a degree is pretty useless out in the sticks, simply because there's no one hiring.
2) Have some idea of a job beyond slaughtering their lungs in a coal mine or whatever other factory job they think they remember. So many of them are neurotically fixated on these ideas. They're not coming back. They can't come back.What other jobs, exactly? There's literally nothing out there besides the odd KFC or McDonalds. That's really the main issue. All of the service based jobs that the US economy is based on nowadays are in the cities, simply because it's far more cost effective for the employer. If it were that simple, this wouldn't be a problem in the first place.
3) Nobody is going to want to do business in the Ozarks or whatever part of Rural America you're from if its best known for its Confederate Generals and / or Klansmen / Neo-Nazis. Abandon the prejudice and idiotic theories about George Soros and Jewish conspiracies. Just see the backlash from the business communities to the Religious "Freedom" bills.That's objectively bullshit. No one's doing business because, due to economic circumstance, it's not profitable. Simple as that. They could be a bunch of the most open-mind intellectuals the world has ever seen and it still wouldn't change that.
Because as you yourself said, it doesn't matter to these goldfish which populist it is they're cheering on so long as they feel someone is pandering to them in some way. They are just so utterly desperate to have someone to give them a solution that doesn't require them to change who and what they truly are.
The question therein is do the rural people WANT these different jobs - will they ultimately go for these ideas, vote for them, and support a comprehensive infrastructure plan that might undo their history of poor decisions. The most staunchly Republican ones can very well applaud such an idea in front of Sanders and then go and support Republican plans. The idea of Renewable Energy for many of them invokes a certain kneejerk response.
I've no problem with what the Republicans deem government handouts, I was pointing out the hypocrisy of the rural voter in wanting to deny someone else these things, and then claim it for themselves with no sense of irony.
If the solutions are feasible and can attain the support necessary to go forward, then they can go ahead.
Once every once in a while, the mask slips and we see their real face, like Donald Trump, for instance, the real face of North American populist conservatism with the mask off, along with the little failed Donald Trump mini-mes who pop up in Canada every now and then.
There will still be jobs, though. People, at some point, are going to be required to maintain both hardware and software. A repair driod might be able to fix a broken hydraulic press, but how's it going to know when to intervene? Who's going to ensure it doesn't glitch out and end up doing more harm than good? Hell, who's gonna repair the repair driod?
We'll still have an economy, just one based on keeping things working and making new things. We'll still need software engineers, scientists, mechanical engineers, doctors, support staff, and more. There are some things only human intuition can adequately handle; I very seriously doubt we'll have that particular API for several more generations.
Trump dying would bring in Pence, who is just as bad, but actually COMPETENT.
Trump dying would bring in Pence, who is just as bad, but actually COMPETENT.
“Listen, whether we like it or not, this is what our history is,” he added, ignoring that the Confederacy was a different country altogether. “It’s just like going to New York City and taking down the monument to those who perished in 9/11 — it will come to that.” (https://thinkprogress.org/maine-governor-claims-removing-confederate-statutes-is-just-like-destroying-911-memorial-b0371ac380aa/)
People claim that Hitler was a Nazi, but they also claim that was killed by a Nazi. Does that sound like something the Nazis would have done if he was one of them?
That’s why one longtime Democratic fundraiser told The Hill that he was “shocked” the party managed to raise even as much as it has — more than it had at this point in each of the past two cycles — with such a shoestring staff.
With Trump’s help, the RNC continues to pull big money from small donors, raising $33 million in donations under $200. Through the first six months of 2017, the RNC has raised more online than it has in an entire year, with the exception of 2008.
So why focus on divisions in the democratic party rather than asking the far more interesting questions of why the republicans are doing better than before?
(also, Trump's approval rating is a bit less than 40%. I would not describe that as 'ridiculously unpopular')
Yeah but the massive amount of democrats running for Congress is staggering. Currently democrats have 209 people registered to run for congressional positions. While Republicans only have 28. Which is very high compared to on my 44 dems who ran in 2014. Which shows mass excitement amongst dems to make a change. Also dems have been winning across the board at state level elections. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-sheer-number-of-democrats-running-for-congress-is-a-good-sign-for-the-party/
That's too bad. Bout sums it up don't it?
Of course he looks straight up at the Eclipse without using glasses.
Barron: Dad...dad PLEASE...
Donald: MY EYES! (he runs indoors)
Melania: Your father is an embarrassment, honey, you should know this by now.
Barron: Knowing it doesn't make it any easier to deal with.
Barron: Dad...dad...
Melania: (whispering) it is best to give up, honey. He doesn't remember which hand to use.
Barron: Didn't you tell him an hour ago?
Melania: I know.
Duh it goes:
1. Staring at a solar eclipse without sun glasses.
2. Banning slavery.
3. Stopping Hitler's regime.
Did a Fox News presenter seriously suggest that the sacred "founding fathers" don't in fact measure up to a current president? Huh, I thought such a thing amounts to high treason amongst American conservatives.
Naw, here's the real founding father.Did a Fox News presenter seriously suggest that the sacred "founding fathers" don't in fact measure up to a current president? Huh, I thought such a thing amounts to high treason amongst American conservatives.
Don't you know? Jesus was the only real founding father. And, as awesome as he was, he was never President.
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01498/jesus_1498126c.jpg)
Duh it goes:
1. Staring at a solar eclipse without sun glasses.
2. Banning slavery.
3. Stopping Hitler's regime.
You mean, "Selling weapons to other people so they could stop Hitler's regime."
WWII was won on the Eastern Front in Europe. Everything else was a distraction--not necessarily unimportant, but a distraction.
Duh it goes:
1. Staring at a solar eclipse without sun glasses.
2. Banning slavery.
3. Stopping Hitler's regime.
Duh it goes:
1. Staring at a solar eclipse without sun glasses.
2. Banning slavery.
3. Stopping Hitler's regime.
You mean, "Selling weapons to other people so they could stop Hitler's regime."
WWII was won on the Eastern Front in Europe. Everything else was a distraction--not necessarily unimportant, but a distraction.
I wasn't being technical.
I put Tiffany in the same class as Barron. She doesn't seem to be making money from or assisting in the administration.
Special Eric
Ivankakaka
Don't you have to say it three times. I suppose we could just call him SpEricI suppose you could shorten it even further to SpIc. Purely for efficiency's sake, you understand.
Trump pardoned Sheriff Joe. He actually did it. He just declared war on the Justice Department.
Ironbite-holy fuck.
He just gave a big middle finger to any federal prosecutor. So yeah, just declared war.
Ironbite-this is amazing.
Reminder: There is an imminent natural disaster in Texas at the moment. And we still have no FEMA director.
Prediction: Trump's going to make Bush's handling of Hurricane Katrina look competent.
It would be rather hilarious if he botched it and his approval rating went to like 12% or something.
Even if he's pardoned it's not like he has a job to go back to.
Master Fwiffo, on 27 Aug 2017 - 10:03 AM, said:
So the fourth largest city in the US is completely under water. You're the President of the United States. What is your first tweet of the day?
"Buy the Second-worst SHerrif in the US's book."
Someone promptly takes the phone away and tells you you have to talk about the flooding. So... you marvel at how it's the greatest flood ever, but don't worry, everything is fine.
And then you start going on about the Wall and Nafta.
Will he ever NOT be an embarrassment?
Well that's tradition, a lot of presidents have left letters of advice to their successor. I can only imagine what Trumps will be. Maybe he'll just tweet it.
One group of negotiators spent all day Sunday working on the labour file, according to a schedule of the talks obtained by The Globe and Mail. One source familiar with the discussions said Canada wants the United States to pass a federal law stopping state governments from enacting right-to-work legislation; the source said the United States has not agreed to such a request. Canada believes that lower labour standards in the United States and Mexico, including right to work, give those countries an unfair advantage in attracting jobs.
Hell. Yes. I live in a right-to-work state, and FUCK THAT SHIT.
"That's not how negotiating works. Negotiating means I yell alot until you do as I say!"
To be fair ending right to work would be good for Trump's base so if he does this he would be giving them an improvement on what they had before. So I imagine he'll fight tooth and nail against it.
Hell. Yes. I live in a right-to-work state, and FUCK THAT SHIT.
I'm just waiting to hear a conservative tell me that the federal government has no right to preempt states' right-to-work laws.
I wouldn't be surprised if they could; federal will always trump state. We tried the other way around, it ended rather...messily.
Interstate commerce clause.
Trump, in his series of tweets Thursday, did not deny reports that he would support a deal on DACA that didn't include the wall.
And, in brief comments to reporters later Thursday, Trump said "the wall will come later."
Caroline O.
I think Breitbart is having a cardiac event....
How can these assholes stand there and be like yes our plan to have health insurance companies drain you of more money is going to help all of you struggling people out there. I really hope the medicare for all movement becomes increasingly more and more popular.
In other news I'm looking forward to my Canadian Healthcare kicking in next Monday.
Alright geez Mr. Technical. I'm sorry my OHIP insurance is going to kick in in a week.
Are you going to be technical about that as well since I "technically" included insurance twice in that sentence?
How can these assholes stand there and be like yes our plan to have health insurance companies drain you of more money is going to help all of you struggling people out there.
QuoteHow can these assholes stand there and be like yes our plan to have health insurance companies drain you of more money is going to help all of you struggling people out there.
Because it's what almost half of America wants.
If the United States or its allies are attacked. People keep forgetting that second part, and it's important, since it actually makes the position quite reasonable - one might even say obvious.
If America's reaction to being attacked by a hostile state isn't to destroy that state, then what's the point of even having a military?
If the United States or its allies are attacked. People keep forgetting that second part, and it's important, since it actually makes the position quite reasonable - one might even say obvious.Military are state annihilation machines? Yeeah, they can be used that way. Kind of like how your car can be used for drag racing-potentially.
If America's reaction to being attacked by a hostile state isn't to destroy that state, then what's the point of even having a military?
If the United States or its allies are attacked. People keep forgetting that second part, and it's important, since it actually makes the position quite reasonable - one might even say obvious.Military are state annihilation machines? Yeeah, they can be used that way. Kind of like how your car can be used for drag racing-potentially.
If America's reaction to being attacked by a hostile state isn't to destroy that state, then what's the point of even having a military?
I'm just going to point out that even a war isn't a binary choice where one nation must be eradicated.If the United States or its allies are attacked. People keep forgetting that second part, and it's important, since it actually makes the position quite reasonable - one might even say obvious.Military are state annihilation machines? Yeeah, they can be used that way. Kind of like how your car can be used for drag racing-potentially.
If America's reaction to being attacked by a hostile state isn't to destroy that state, then what's the point of even having a military?
Ah yes, the ever fun argument tactic of "ignore the general point of the reply and focus on the wording of the final line".
Direct question: do you think the United States has an obligation to retaliate if it is attacked, especially if we are attacked with a nuclear weapon? Yes or no.
Massachusetts was the state that prototyped the originally-Republican-developed ideas that became the basis for the ACA. And there's lots of talk that states need to experiment. But that's not really what the Republicans want. As John Kennedy of Louisiana said, "I want to get us to give guardrails to the states to say, 'You cannot use these moneys to set up a state-run single-payer system.'” I don’t believe in it. I think it’s a mistake."
I really hope there are some sensible republicans that will oppose this bill, or things are going to become a lot worse in the states for healthcare. The United states has slowly been becoming a country for the rich ever since the 80s. Somethings gotta change.
I'm just going to point out that even a war isn't a binary choice where one nation must be eradicated.
If USA or any NATO country is attacked NATO can just beat back the attacker and force them to accept peace (and probably some heavy sanctions starting with reducing their military.)
Granted that USA seems to think otherwise. Iraq and Afghanistan were bombed back to stone age. Afghan specifically tried to surrender but US military went with "LOL nope, we want more blood" and continued fighting the war long after one side was waving the white flag.
https://theintercept.com/2017/08/22/afghanistan-donald-trump-taliban-surrender-here-we-are/
Now, had the surrender been accepted would that have somehow been worse for USA? I mean it would have meant less deaths all around. Less dead US military personnel, less dead Taliban and a lot less dead civilians. They could have kept on hunting Osama even without a war going on. Less money would have been needed for the rebuilding phase for certain.
This is not some video game where the war isn't over until every enemy unit has been shot. In fact, if USA showing up on their doorstep is enough to stop someone from invading a US ally isn't that a good thing? "Oh wait, you were serious about that NATO stuff? Ooopsy daisy, we'll just go back home, ok?" Huzzah! Medals for everyone! Let the diplomats handle the remaining issues.
Yes. However, annihilation?If the United States or its allies are attacked. People keep forgetting that second part, and it's important, since it actually makes the position quite reasonable - one might even say obvious.Military are state annihilation machines? Yeeah, they can be used that way. Kind of like how your car can be used for drag racing-potentially.
If America's reaction to being attacked by a hostile state isn't to destroy that state, then what's the point of even having a military?
Ah yes, the ever fun argument tactic of "ignore the general point of the reply and focus on the wording of the final line".
Direct question: do you think the United States has an obligation to retaliate if it is attacked, especially if we are attacked with a nuclear weapon? Yes or no.
Yes. However, annihilation?If the United States or its allies are attacked. People keep forgetting that second part, and it's important, since it actually makes the position quite reasonable - one might even say obvious.Military are state annihilation machines? Yeeah, they can be used that way. Kind of like how your car can be used for drag racing-potentially.
If America's reaction to being attacked by a hostile state isn't to destroy that state, then what's the point of even having a military?
Ah yes, the ever fun argument tactic of "ignore the general point of the reply and focus on the wording of the final line".
Direct question: do you think the United States has an obligation to retaliate if it is attacked, especially if we are attacked with a nuclear weapon? Yes or no.
Because all of North Korea being annihilated sounds like a while lotta innocent dead folks.
For the record, Trump's wall will be built, it's just going to be invisibleWell, you can see through air.
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/352016-trump-southern-border-wall-is-going-to-be-see-through
The fuck... this is actually real.
You gotta love how Trump is telling nfl fans to not condone something harmless like not standing for the national anthem. But he wont condone white nazi sympathizers who wish to eradicate people different from him.
What grounds are those? That he doesn't want cops shooting black people for being black?
To be quite honest is there even a reason to be proud of America?
We claim to stand for freedom of speech unless people are using their freedom of speech against the right wing, apparently.
We claim to stand for democracy but have stood with Saudi Arabia for years, and our current elected head of state's favorite people are Duterte, Erdogan and Putin. Really, if you think about it, pretty much everything positive that we claim to stand for, we really just lie about and do what serves the interests of whoever's in office instead. Quite honestly asking here, but why should I be proud of living in this country?
Truth be told, I'd be much more proud to live in Germany or Sweden or the Netherlands than here.
Hell, after 1945, even Japan has a much better record, and that's factoring in their refusal to apologize for much of anything.
a) You still seem to have a problem understanding that hate speech is not the same as critique.
b) Racism and domestic-bigotry are still common in Japan but it's been ages since they started wars for their own benefit or legalized torturing people or refused voting rights to minorities. (Ok, they have their own minorities that are actively denied jobs and upwards mobility but mainly by the citizens rather than the government.)
We shouldn't sugarcoat America's flaws and misdeeds, but there are legitimate reasons to be proud, at least in my opinion. If you don't think so, that's fine. I'm not some ultranationalist who thinks criticizing America points to some kind of underlying character flaw. I love my country, warts and all.Never thought pride in a country was tied to how "free" the country was in the first place. Loving a country "warts and all" is essentially a tribal affiliation not a rational argument.
Which is why John Oliver is in Gitmo right now. /s
America granted women the vote before most European countries (French women weren't enfranchised until 1945!), rebuilt numerous countries devastated in World War II, is one of the most diverse countries on the planet, has made countless innovations, and remains one of the global leaders in free speech.
We shouldn't sugarcoat America's flaws and misdeeds, but there are legitimate reasons to be proud, at least in my opinion. If you don't think so, that's fine. I'm not some ultranationalist who thinks criticizing America points to some kind of underlying character flaw. I love my country, warts and all.
All countries where you can get arrested for criticizing Islam (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ida-lichter-md/penalizing-criticism-of-islam-threatens-free-speech_b_1334590.html). They might as well bring back blasphemy laws.
You mean the country that still calls its Korean population "foreigners" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koreans_in_Japan)? Japan is still very xenophobic (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-discrimination-foreign/foreigners-in-japan-face-significant-levels-of-discrimination-survey-shows-idUSKBN1720GP) for a first-world country.
For 25 years, I worked in the public hospital system of Louisiana trying to bring health care to those who did not have. And I learned in those 25 years that when the patient has the power, the system lines up to serve her. And when the bureaucrat has the power, it first serves the bureaucrat. Now, this is a debate about who has the power. Is it you, the patient, or is it the federal government? The narrative on the other side is that you don't have the capability to care for yourself, that your governor is corrupt, scheming to take away your protections if you have a pre-existing condition. And they think the federal government taking control of your life is a better way to go.
The logical extension of that, unfortunately, is the Charlie Gard case, the Charlie Gard case in which the single payer of England said the decide -- the life -- the decision of the life of your child is too important for the parents to make, and then the child died. I will tell you, if it's a decision about you versus the federal government, we side with you. Those who oppose us and those who want single payer, they choose otherwise. Thank you.
How would single-payer take power away from the patient? I mean, the choice looks to me more like deciding if the power should go to the federal government or the private insurance companies.
That's how outrage culture works, while the world burns yell about how outrageous some piddling shit that offends conservatives sense of decorum is and how that's the real issue. Never mind the smoke starting to fill the room and the temperature rising.
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/G17/AL#S2_
Oh God Roy Moore will probably become a US Senator.
Graham, though, said he was not alone in his lack of understanding of health care. “Nobody in our conference believes Obamacare works. It must be replaced. But until now, we didn’t know how to do it,” Graham told reporters in the Capitol on Tuesday, audio of which is posted below."
...
A reporter pointed out that such ignorance at this late stage is hard to understand. “You’ve been working to overhaul this for seven years. Why is this so hard?” she asked.
“Well, I’ve been doing it for about a month. I thought everybody else knew what the hell they were talking about, but apparently not,” Graham clarified, adding he had assumed “these really smart people will figure it out.”
The crash course in health policy has been a romp, Graham said. “I’ve enjoyed this more than anything. I’ve learned so much about health care in other states — Pennsylvania, Alaska, Ohio,” he said, adding that he even learned about his own state. “South Carolina, we have 11 predominantly African-American counties that have unique health care needs and one size doesn’t fit all, even within your state. I looked at the history of welfare reform, and I think we can replicate that here.
We have entrance exams for universities, but not the law-making body of our entire country. HMM.
Price has resigned in the wake of the private plane scandal.
Ironbite-his mistake was being a GREEDY FUCKING BASTARD!
Price has resigned in the wake of the private plane scandal.
Ironbite-his mistake was being a GREEDY FUCKING BASTARD!
Trump's lack of decorum, dignity, and statesmanship.
My Leftist friends (as well as many ardent #NeverTrumpers) constantly ask me if I’m not bothered by Donald Trump’s lack of decorum. They ask if I don’t think his tweets are “beneath the dignity of the office.”
Here’s my answer:
We Right-thinking people have tried dignity. There could not have been a man of more quiet dignity than George W. Bush as he suffered the outrageous lies and politically motivated hatreds that undermined his presidency.
We tried statesmanship. Could there be another human being on this earth who so desperately prized “collegiality” as John McCain?
We tried propriety – has there been a nicer human being ever than Mitt Romney?
And the results were always the same. This is because, while we were playing by the rules of dignity, collegiality and propriety, the Left has been, for the past 60 years, engaged in a knife fight where the only rules are those of Saul Alinsky and the Chicago mob.
I don’t find anything “dignified,” “collegial” or “proper” about Barack Obama’s lying about what went down on the streets of Ferguson in order to ramp up racial hatreds because racial hatreds serve the Democratic Party. I don’t see anything “dignified” in lying about the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi and imprisoning an innocent filmmaker to cover your tracks. I don’t see anything “statesman-like” in weaponizing the IRS to be used to destroy your political opponents and any dissent. Yes, Obama was “articulate” and “polished” but in no way was he in the least bit “dignified,” “collegial” or “proper.”
The Left has been engaged in a war against America since the rise of the Children of the ‘60s. To them, it has been an all-out war where nothing is held sacred and nothing is seen as beyond the pale. It has been a war they’ve fought with violence, the threat of violence, demagoguery and lies from day one – the violent take-over of the universities – till today. The problem is that, through these years, the Left has been the only side fighting this war. While the Left has been taking a knife to anyone who stands in their way, the Right has continued to act with dignity, collegiality and propriety. With Donald Trump, this all has come to an end. Donald Trump is America ’s first wartime president in the Culture War.
During wartime, things like “dignity” and “collegiality” simply aren’t the most essential qualities one looks for in their warriors. Ulysses Grant was a drunk whose behavior in peacetime might well have seen him drummed out of the Army for conduct unbecoming. Had Abraham Lincoln applied the peacetime rules of propriety and booted Grant, the Democrats might well still be holding their slaves today. Lincoln rightly recognized that, “I cannot spare this man. He fights.”
General George Patton was a vulgar-talking, son-of-a-bitch. In peacetime, this might have seen him stripped of rank. But, had Franklin Roosevelt applied the normal rules of decorum then, Hitler and the Socialists would barely be five decades into their thousand-year Reich.
Trump is fighting. And what’s particularly delicious is that, like Patton standing over the battlefield as his tanks obliterated Rommel’s, he’s shouting, “You magnificent bastards, I read your book!”
That is just the icing on the cake, but it’s wonderful to see that not only is Trump fighting, he’s defeating the Left using their own tactics. That book is Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals – a book so essential to the Liberals’ war against America that it is and was the playbook for the entire Obama administration and the subject of Hillary Clinton’s senior thesis. It is a book of such pure evil, that, just as the rest of us would dedicate our book to those we most love or those to whom we are most indebted, Alinsky dedicated his book to Lucifer.
Trump’s tweets may seem rash and unconsidered but, in reality, he is doing exactly what Alinsky suggested his followers do. First, instead of going after “the fake media” — and they are so fake that they have literally gotten every single significant story of the past 60 years not just wrong, but diametrically opposed to the truth, from the Tet Offensive to Benghazi, to what really happened on the streets of Ferguson, Missouri — Trump isolated CNN. He made it personal.
Then, just as Alinsky suggests, he employs ridicule which Alinsky described as “the most powerful weapon of all.” ... Most importantly, Trump’s tweets have put CNN in an untenable and unwinnable position. ... They need to respond. This leaves them with only two choices. They can either “go high” (as Hillary would disingenuously declare of herself and the fake news would disingenuously report as the truth) and begin to honestly and accurately report the news or they can double-down on their usual tactics and hope to defeat Trump with twice their usual hysteria and demagoguery. The problem for CNN (et al.) with the former is that, if they were to start honestly reporting the news, that would be the end of the Democratic Party they serve.
It is nothing but the incessant use of fake news (read: propaganda) that keeps the Left alive. Imagine, for example, if CNN had honestly and accurately reported then-candidate Barack Obama’s close ties to foreign terrorists (Rashid Khalidi), domestic terrorists (William Ayers), the mafia (Tony Rezko) or the true evils of his spiritual mentor, Jeremiah Wright’s church.. Imagine if they had honestly and accurately conveyed the evils of the Obama administration’s weaponizing of the IRS to be used against their political opponents or his running of guns to the Mexican cartels or the truth about the murder of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and the Obama administration’s cover-up.
So, to my friends on the Left — and the #NeverTrumpers as well — do I wish we lived in a time when our president could be “collegial” and “dignified” and “proper”? Of course I do. These aren’t those times. This is war. And it’s a war that the Left has been fighting without opposition for the past 50 years. So, say anything you want about this president - I get it - he can be vulgar, he can be crude, he can be undignified at times. I don’t care. I can’t spare this man. He fights for America! written by Evan Sayet
QuoteTrump's lack of decorum, dignity, and statesmanship.
My Leftist friends (as well as many ardent #NeverTrumpers) constantly ask me if I’m not bothered by Donald Trump’s lack of decorum. They ask if I don’t think his tweets are “beneath the dignity of the office.”
Here’s my answer:
We Right-thinking people have tried dignity. There could not have been a man of more quiet dignity than George W. Bush as he suffered the outrageous lies and politically motivated hatreds that undermined his presidency.
We tried statesmanship. Could there be another human being on this earth who so desperately prized “collegiality” as John McCain?
We tried propriety – has there been a nicer human being ever than Mitt Romney?
And the results were always the same. This is because, while we were playing by the rules of dignity, collegiality and propriety, the Left has been, for the past 60 years, engaged in a knife fight where the only rules are those of Saul Alinsky and the Chicago mob.
I don’t find anything “dignified,” “collegial” or “proper” about Barack Obama’s lying about what went down on the streets of Ferguson in order to ramp up racial hatreds because racial hatreds serve the Democratic Party. I don’t see anything “dignified” in lying about the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi and imprisoning an innocent filmmaker to cover your tracks. I don’t see anything “statesman-like” in weaponizing the IRS to be used to destroy your political opponents and any dissent. Yes, Obama was “articulate” and “polished” but in no way was he in the least bit “dignified,” “collegial” or “proper.”
The Left has been engaged in a war against America since the rise of the Children of the ‘60s. To them, it has been an all-out war where nothing is held sacred and nothing is seen as beyond the pale. It has been a war they’ve fought with violence, the threat of violence, demagoguery and lies from day one – the violent take-over of the universities – till today. The problem is that, through these years, the Left has been the only side fighting this war. While the Left has been taking a knife to anyone who stands in their way, the Right has continued to act with dignity, collegiality and propriety. With Donald Trump, this all has come to an end. Donald Trump is America ’s first wartime president in the Culture War.
During wartime, things like “dignity” and “collegiality” simply aren’t the most essential qualities one looks for in their warriors. Ulysses Grant was a drunk whose behavior in peacetime might well have seen him drummed out of the Army for conduct unbecoming. Had Abraham Lincoln applied the peacetime rules of propriety and booted Grant, the Democrats might well still be holding their slaves today. Lincoln rightly recognized that, “I cannot spare this man. He fights.”
General George Patton was a vulgar-talking, son-of-a-bitch. In peacetime, this might have seen him stripped of rank. But, had Franklin Roosevelt applied the normal rules of decorum then, Hitler and the Socialists would barely be five decades into their thousand-year Reich.
Trump is fighting. And what’s particularly delicious is that, like Patton standing over the battlefield as his tanks obliterated Rommel’s, he’s shouting, “You magnificent bastards, I read your book!”
That is just the icing on the cake, but it’s wonderful to see that not only is Trump fighting, he’s defeating the Left using their own tactics. That book is Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals – a book so essential to the Liberals’ war against America that it is and was the playbook for the entire Obama administration and the subject of Hillary Clinton’s senior thesis. It is a book of such pure evil, that, just as the rest of us would dedicate our book to those we most love or those to whom we are most indebted, Alinsky dedicated his book to Lucifer.
Trump’s tweets may seem rash and unconsidered but, in reality, he is doing exactly what Alinsky suggested his followers do. First, instead of going after “the fake media” — and they are so fake that they have literally gotten every single significant story of the past 60 years not just wrong, but diametrically opposed to the truth, from the Tet Offensive to Benghazi, to what really happened on the streets of Ferguson, Missouri — Trump isolated CNN. He made it personal.
Then, just as Alinsky suggests, he employs ridicule which Alinsky described as “the most powerful weapon of all.” ... Most importantly, Trump’s tweets have put CNN in an untenable and unwinnable position. ... They need to respond. This leaves them with only two choices. They can either “go high” (as Hillary would disingenuously declare of herself and the fake news would disingenuously report as the truth) and begin to honestly and accurately report the news or they can double-down on their usual tactics and hope to defeat Trump with twice their usual hysteria and demagoguery. The problem for CNN (et al.) with the former is that, if they were to start honestly reporting the news, that would be the end of the Democratic Party they serve.
It is nothing but the incessant use of fake news (read: propaganda) that keeps the Left alive. Imagine, for example, if CNN had honestly and accurately reported then-candidate Barack Obama’s close ties to foreign terrorists (Rashid Khalidi), domestic terrorists (William Ayers), the mafia (Tony Rezko) or the true evils of his spiritual mentor, Jeremiah Wright’s church.. Imagine if they had honestly and accurately conveyed the evils of the Obama administration’s weaponizing of the IRS to be used against their political opponents or his running of guns to the Mexican cartels or the truth about the murder of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and the Obama administration’s cover-up.
So, to my friends on the Left — and the #NeverTrumpers as well — do I wish we lived in a time when our president could be “collegial” and “dignified” and “proper”? Of course I do. These aren’t those times. This is war. And it’s a war that the Left has been fighting without opposition for the past 50 years. So, say anything you want about this president - I get it - he can be vulgar, he can be crude, he can be undignified at times. I don’t care. I can’t spare this man. He fights for America! written by Evan Sayet
That book is Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals – a book so essential to the Liberals’ war against America that it is and was the playbook for the entire Obama administration and the subject of Hillary Clinton’s senior thesis.
Belgium: At least he can't invade through us this time!
Ron Johnson, my representative, by the way, is a fucking partisan hack who is just as fucking fascist as Trump. He has not gone against what Trump has wanted ONCE. I fucking hate this guy almost as much as I hate Trump.
Trumps the kind of idiot that would tweet the military's plan of attack before doing it.Especially because he already complained about USA announcing an attack plan in advance.
Why would Trump think that attacking North-Korea makes him look like a bad guy? Everything so far has demonstrated that he thinks it would be a great choice that would make him look like the tough leader he wants to look like.
Why would Trump think that attacking North-Korea makes him look like a bad guy? Everything so far has demonstrated that he thinks it would be a great choice that would make him look like the tough leader he wants to look like.
Because he (or at least Mattis) has to know that ordinary North Koreans are actually political prisoners, and it doesn't look good to bomb your enemy's hostage camp unprovoked.
Why would Trump think that attacking North-Korea makes him look like a bad guy? Everything so far has demonstrated that he thinks it would be a great choice that would make him look like the tough leader he wants to look like.
Because he (or at least Mattis) has to know that ordinary North Koreans are actually political prisoners, and it doesn't look good to bomb your enemy's hostage camp unprovoked.
But do you really think that someone can explain that to him? Consider how many people must have helped him come up with a way to denounce the violence in Charlottesville and he still ended up going with the "many sides" comment in the middle of the scripted speech.
It's a shame the White House has become an adult day care center. Someone obviously missed their shift this morning.
[T]here is very strong evidence that Planned Parenthood's sale of baby parts violated relevant federal law. Planned Parenthood repeatedly claimed that they earned no profit from the sale of baby parts, but also failed to produce one single lickspittle of evidence to refute the words captured on tape from its own representatives. Instead, it relied on its media and political defenders to make it go away, and, just like the accusations against Mr. Weinstein (also a major Democratic donor), it did. The media had to lie and suppress the plain videotaped evidence of anyone with eyes to see, calling the videos "doctored" for no reason at all -- but they succeeded, because the media is very good at spreading lies when it puts its collective mind to it.
But the evidence was still there. Rep. Blackburn's committee took note of it in its report and filed the appropriate criminal referrals with the California Attorney General, among others. Of course, the CA A.G., the real sack of shit in this story, is a big ol' Democrat, and was far more interested in putting away David Daleiden for exposing the truth than he was in even pretending to investigate Planned Parenthood's very possible crimes. Shades of the Weinstein-Cyrus Vance Jr. relationship there.
So, before you go on a ragemode again, open your "fucking" eyes and look at the "fucking" statute and the things those Planned Parenthood "fuckers" said on tape, and see if you can explain what legally-allowed expenses StemExpress was paying Planned Parenthood for, since StemExpress was already (by mutual admission) directly handling both the storage costs and the transportation costs, not to mention every single other valid expense permitted by statute.
Planned Parenthood sells baby parts.*
And Twitter, in an act of unmitigated political evil, has decided to censor that basic truth.
There's a lot of people in this story who deserve full ragemode -- a genuinely stunning number of lying sacks of shit -- but a Congresswoman who helped expose them is not one. She deserves our donations, not our ire.
*On a relatively minor linguistic note, even if Planned Parenthood were able to show that its sale of baby parts did not incur them a profit and was within the law, it would still be accurate to call the transfer of harvested fetal organs to a for-profit corporation in exchange for money a "sale." And I think that's an overlooked element of this case: Planned Parenthood's whole defense has been, "Oh, the literal blood money we received was technically legal," but there's a large portion of the American people who believe that, even if it is legal, it should go the way of the slave trade and be banned. Either way, it is a sale, and Blackburn is saying a truth that makes a lot of people very angry, but it is nevertheless indisputably true for any regular user of the English language.
Even if they do sell aborted carcasses. So what? Is that so much worse than simply throwing them into an incinerator?
Even if they do sell aborted carcasses. So what? Is that so much worse than simply throwing them into an incinerator?
Even if they do sell aborted carcasses. So what? Is that so much worse than simply throwing them into an incinerator?
That would represent a conflict of interest. If the hospital makes money selling aborted carcasses, then they'll encourage mothers to abort, or even just perform then without asking and lie and say it was a miscarriage.
The world is a dark and lonely place, and it is literally impossible to be too paranoid. No matter how evil you imagine people to be, they are worse.
Even if they do sell aborted carcasses. So what? Is that so much worse than simply throwing them into an incinerator?
That would represent a conflict of interest. If the hospital makes money selling aborted carcasses, then they'll encourage mothers to abort, or even just perform then without asking and lie and say it was a miscarriage.
The world is a dark and lonely place, and it is literally impossible to be too paranoid. No matter how evil you imagine people to be, they are worse.
Side note to that: I wouldn't want any of them thrown into an incinerator. I'd want them buried near the roots of trees or under gardens so they can fertilize the planet's flora as they decompose.
Even if they do sell aborted carcasses. So what? Is that so much worse than simply throwing them into an incinerator?
That would represent a conflict of interest. If the hospital makes money selling aborted carcasses, then they'll encourage mothers to abort, or even just perform then without asking and lie and say it was a miscarriage.
The world is a dark and lonely place, and it is literally impossible to be too paranoid. No matter how evil you imagine people to be, they are worse.
Side note to that: I wouldn't want any of them thrown into an incinerator. I'd want them buried near the roots of trees or under gardens so they can fertilize the planet's flora as they decompose.
I'm pretty sure burying medical waste (especially in someone's garden) is fifty shades of illegal.
Eminem / Ice-T 2020!
Chris Evans/Don Cheadle 2020. If Captain America and War Machine can't fix things, no one can.I hereby nominate Robert Downey Jr. for Treasury Secretary.
Haven't you heard taht Ron Perlman is running in 2020?
It's not a new strategy. It's the one you run when your opponents have this amount of unelectable crazy to begin with. And don't you say that Hilary couldn't have beaten Trump. She absolutely could've if she figured out where he was concentrating on.
Ironbite-I just hope the Democrats have some young hungry blood waiting to take the crazy down.
This is an island, surrounded by water, big water, ocean water.
If Hillary was acting like this GOP would be out there with torches demanding her to be removed from office.
They're never gonna impeach Trump.
Apparently Trump loves to mock Mike Pence for his Fundie views, ridiculing him and comparing him to the Taliban for "wanting to hang gays" and making fun of his plans to overturn roe vs wade since "blue states will just make it legal on their own."
Stopped clocks and all.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/10/23/the-danger-of-president-penceI dunno, has anybody hear voiced that preference? Pence is probably more dangerous as Trump's a wanna be dictator that's too shambolic to get shit done whereas Pence is a Christian dominionist and Koch operative who isn't.
Read this... now do you really want Pence over Trump?
a) Pence is 99.9% less likely to start a war just because someone dared him.
b) Pence has experience in politics and is more likely to actually accomplish things.
c) Pence would not have similar chaotic government where people are getting fired after 11 days on the job.
Sure, there's a high chance that he tries to push for fundie laws and Pence-care and whatnot, but that's nothing new. Trump is pushing laws like that already. Sure, he might accomplish more but even now it's clear that the GOP is running their own show with Trump as a figurehead. (They are doing it poorly as can be seen from their inability to pass laws, but still.)
I'm gonna be selfish here and admit that I am more worried about a global war than horrible laws in USA.
The latter can be undone after the next election while damage from nukes is a bit more troublesome.
I'm gonna be selfish here and admit that I am more worried about a global war than horrible laws in USA.
The latter can be undone after the next election while damage from nukes is a bit more troublesome.
I'm gonna be selfish here and admit that I am more worried about a global war than horrible laws in USA.That possibility will still be there, though it will be reduced if Trump goes. The battle lines that were there during the Cold War are solidifying again only this time everyone admits it's all about national interest and resources and has nothing to do with ideology.
The latter can be undone after the next election while damage from nukes is a bit more troublesome.
So, you've been listening to Pat Robertson as well?
https://theguardiansofdemocracy.com/tv-preacher-pat-robertson-demands-trump-fire-mueller-pardon-everyone-whole-thing-shut/
QuoteQuoteI believe in a future in which the Republican party awakens from its fundamentalist-infected fever-dream.
(https://image.ibb.co/enDNqw/image.png) (https://imgbb.com/)
I couldn't agree more.
*For example we didn't shred our banking regulations and thus avoid the worst of the recession, our policies are designed to making it easier for immigrants to integrate, we have no fox news, etc
Just Scientology, huh? At least we can hope that it'll set a precedent.
Why would Kim Jong-un insult me by calling me "old," when I would NEVER call him "short and fat?" Oh well, I try so hard to be his friend - and maybe someday that will happen!
It may have been a joke of his and another jab at Kim ...or he is just incredibly stupid and incompetent in diplomacy.Yeah, that probably is an attempt at humor. You can't be sure, though, since when it suits him he just unashamedly recreates reality ignoring opposing evidence and/or his own previous record on the issue at hand.
Also worth note: Murkowski has announced that she intends to vote for the tax plan and Ron Johnson has flipped (and seeing who Ron Johnson is in the first place, this is my surprised face.)
With Trump being largely unfavorable, and the GOP failing to pass a very unpopular healthcare reform and now trying to pass a very unpopular tax reform. I'm expecting a trouncing of the GOP next year.
Oh, and now Mueller has issued a subpoena to Deutsche Bank for Trump's financial records.
And Trump is freaking the fuck out.
Took me a while to get my head around what has happened, but what I understand is: They lowered the corporate rate to 20% and removed the AMT. Then at the last minute the AMT goes back in, but instead of being inserted at a rate lower than the corporate tax rate (which is what it is supposed to be because it is an alternative minimum rate) it was left at its old rate, which happens to be 20%, exactly the same as the new actual corporate tax rate.
So the "alternative minimum" rate is now just "the rate" - which is a huge blow to companies which spend a lot of time and effort trying to pay the AMT and not the usual rate of corporate tax.
It's almost as if he was creating scandals on purpose to distract from previous scandals.
N-K situation is driving towards a war and now he is trying to start another war in the Middle East as well...
Man with the FCC killing Net Neutrality today I'm glad that I moved to Canada earlier this year.
The biggest thing I don't get it is that virtually everyone in the line of succession would sign any bill Republicans put in front of him. They don't need Trump unless the conspiracy is so huge that the entire line of succession is guilty. And even then, it will take so much time for the conspiracy to unravel (remember, Nixon had a probably much smaller scandal and he still took three years) that it doesn't matter. Trump goes down? Pence will sign the same bills. Pence goes down? Ryan will sign the same bills. Hatch will sign them. Tillerson will sign them. They don't need Trump.
I think it's two things. Republicans don't want the drama and the damage done to their party if impeachment processes would become the major focus in Washington. Democrats are hesitant to demand impeachment because they don't have power and it's an election year so they probably dont want to jump the gun and then look foolish if nothing comes up in these investigations.
Here's my opinion: Cloud is absolutely right that Pence or Ryan or Hatch or anyone else would sign the tax cuts just as quickly. The GOP establishment knows that, but they're afraid of Trump's voters. They've spent four decades using hate radio and Fake News to cultivate this mob of racist, heavily-armed religious kooks who are convinced that the dam librals are out to steal their guns and Bables and make their sons gay marry Mexican immigrants then let Muslins kill them all. The human dumpster fire has them convinced that he's their Messiah; if Dump is removed from power and the GOP establishment looks culpable in any way this mob--or, as you can also call it, the Republican base--will be livid. The GOP establishment--the economic royalists who actually don't give a flying fuck about gay marriage or abortion or Jesus returning and just want their tax cuts, dammit--need those votes to keep and stay in power.You forgot to follow the money. Yes Trump is the king of free publicity, and yes everything you said is pretty much true, and yes, it's only the midterms coming up, but these tax cuts stink to high heaven, and even half the Republicans in the Legislative branch know it, but they're going to pass it because they'll be wiped out in the midterms if they don't, and it's not about appeasing (or even energising) the base, or having a win under their belt, you just have to look at the boondoggles they're putting in, the people they're hurting, and the only people who are going to benefit from this fiasco. It is about the Republican donors. There aren't millions of them giving $27 each. It's the super rich giving hundreds of millions, and if the Republicans don't give them the world's most expensive blowjob, they're going to lose a LOT of funding for midterms and 2020. No ads to feed FOX or Breitbart or Drudge. No ground support. No stickers or posters or fake news (made in America). No insane 'think'tanks. They're trying to appease the asshole portion of the 0.01%, no one else.
the coin, which is thicker than those made for past presidents
This is only the second week of 2018:
(https://i.redditmedia.com/pdHp6bnI1CUNuZ71Jdu6U8Gj3jCH6IRczLrcvHJa-mQ.jpg?w=702&s=5a2e3bb3b45cf1a8f976a50063849a9f)
And that is the person the people of USA elected as their leader. Good jorb guys.
1. If you want to claim you're mentally sound, maybe you shouldn't compare yourself to a man who had Alzheimer's.That's all you noticed?
2. You ran in 2000, so no, you didn't win on your first try.
Also this...Oh. Guess that one was pretty obvious...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcGQpjCztgA
Seers aren’t born every day. The realm that has one— But that’s no matter to us, Mira. The messengers tried that tack on me, whining on about how you’d help keep our borders safe, our people fed and happy because of how you can tell what’s going to happen. As if there aren’t lands that know peace and plenty without the help of any magic at all, except a king wise enough to heed and give good counsel! A leader who looks beyond his own mirror’s all any country needs to be happy, not a weathercock who’ll dance to follow the latest gust of wind, nor a man who smiles in the face of war because he only sees his own glory, never mind if he climbs to reach it over the bones of other people’s sons.
We are gonna have a Government Shutdown because the Orange Piss Pot can't let go of his wall but will let go of CHIP. Oh they'll try to blame the Dems for this but most of the GOP knows it's gonna be hollow blame considering they control the Government.
Ironbite-and with Trump's prediction of only a terrorists attack being able to save the GOP come November, I'm a bit scared.
We are gonna have a Government Shutdown because the Orange Piss Pot can't let go of his wall but will let go of CHIP. Oh they'll try to blame the Dems for this but most of the GOP knows it's gonna be hollow blame considering they control the Government.
Ironbite-and with Trump's prediction of only a terrorists attack being able to save the GOP come November, I'm a bit scared.
This is seriously like something out of the Dark Knight: one boat with Dreamers and one boat with CHIP recipients, and Trump has given Schumer a button to blow up one of the ships...
Fuck, I just realized my Avatar his Harley Quinn and I described Trump as The Joker. Just ignore that, this simile isn't perfect.
We are gonna have a Government Shutdown because the Orange Piss Pot can't let go of his wall but will let go of CHIP. Oh they'll try to blame the Dems for this but most of the GOP knows it's gonna be hollow blame considering they control the Government.
Ironbite-and with Trump's prediction of only a terrorists attack being able to save the GOP come November, I'm a bit scared.
This is seriously like something out of the Dark Knight: one boat with Dreamers and one boat with CHIP recipients, and Trump has given Schumer a button to blow up one of the ships...
Fuck, I just realized my Avatar his Harley Quinn and I described Trump as The Joker. Just ignore that, this simile isn't perfect.
Which is why the Dems should also be insisting on entrenching Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and legislatively restoring net neutrality. (The latter is pretty likely, since plenty of Republicans support it.) For that matter, repeal of federal criminal law on marijuana (or at a minimum a ban on the use of federal resources to enforce marijuana laws in states that have repealed their criminal laws on the matter) is another one that can win Republican support (just look at Cory Gardner's reaction). Ask for all of that, and you'll get some of it.
Anyway, the GOP was particularly cruel with CHIP, because previously there had never been an issue reauthorizing it, until they decided they needed another hostage.
We are gonna have a Government Shutdown because the Orange Piss Pot can't let go of his wall but will let go of CHIP. Oh they'll try to blame the Dems for this but most of the GOP knows it's gonna be hollow blame considering they control the Government.
Ironbite-and with Trump's prediction of only a terrorists attack being able to save the GOP come November, I'm a bit scared.
This is seriously like something out of the Dark Knight: one boat with Dreamers and one boat with CHIP recipients, and Trump has given Schumer a button to blow up one of the ships...
Fuck, I just realized my Avatar his Harley Quinn and I described Trump as The Joker. Just ignore that, this simile isn't perfect.
Which is why the Dems should also be insisting on entrenching Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and legislatively restoring net neutrality. (The latter is pretty likely, since plenty of Republicans support it.) For that matter, repeal of federal criminal law on marijuana (or at a minimum a ban on the use of federal resources to enforce marijuana laws in states that have repealed their criminal laws on the matter) is another one that can win Republican support (just look at Cory Gardner's reaction). Ask for all of that, and you'll get some of it.
Anyway, the GOP was particularly cruel with CHIP, because previously there had never been an issue reauthorizing it, until they decided they needed another hostage.
Yeah, remember last time you held out for everything (Bernie and Jill) and got nothing (Trump)... It doesn't quite work that way.
Ask for all of that, and you'll get some of it.
We are gonna have a Government Shutdown because the Orange Piss Pot can't let go of his wall but will let go of CHIP. Oh they'll try to blame the Dems for this but most of the GOP knows it's gonna be hollow blame considering they control the Government.
Ironbite-and with Trump's prediction of only a terrorists attack being able to save the GOP come November, I'm a bit scared.
This is seriously like something out of the Dark Knight: one boat with Dreamers and one boat with CHIP recipients, and Trump has given Schumer a button to blow up one of the ships...
Fuck, I just realized my Avatar his Harley Quinn and I described Trump as The Joker. Just ignore that, this simile isn't perfect.
Which is why the Dems should also be insisting on entrenching Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and legislatively restoring net neutrality. (The latter is pretty likely, since plenty of Republicans support it.) For that matter, repeal of federal criminal law on marijuana (or at a minimum a ban on the use of federal resources to enforce marijuana laws in states that have repealed their criminal laws on the matter) is another one that can win Republican support (just look at Cory Gardner's reaction). Ask for all of that, and you'll get some of it.
Anyway, the GOP was particularly cruel with CHIP, because previously there had never been an issue reauthorizing it, until they decided they needed another hostage.
Yeah, remember last time you held out for everything (Bernie and Jill) and got nothing (Trump)... It doesn't quite work that way.
Did I say anything about holding out for everything?QuoteAsk for all of that, and you'll get some of it.
We are gonna have a Government Shutdown because the Orange Piss Pot can't let go of his wall but will let go of CHIP. Oh they'll try to blame the Dems for this but most of the GOP knows it's gonna be hollow blame considering they control the Government.
Ironbite-and with Trump's prediction of only a terrorists attack being able to save the GOP come November, I'm a bit scared.
This is seriously like something out of the Dark Knight: one boat with Dreamers and one boat with CHIP recipients, and Trump has given Schumer a button to blow up one of the ships...
Fuck, I just realized my Avatar his Harley Quinn and I described Trump as The Joker. Just ignore that, this simile isn't perfect.
Which is why the Dems should also be insisting on entrenching Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and legislatively restoring net neutrality. (The latter is pretty likely, since plenty of Republicans support it.) For that matter, repeal of federal criminal law on marijuana (or at a minimum a ban on the use of federal resources to enforce marijuana laws in states that have repealed their criminal laws on the matter) is another one that can win Republican support (just look at Cory Gardner's reaction). Ask for all of that, and you'll get some of it.
Anyway, the GOP was particularly cruel with CHIP, because previously there had never been an issue reauthorizing it, until they decided they needed another hostage.
Yeah, remember last time you held out for everything (Bernie and Jill) and got nothing (Trump)... It doesn't quite work that way.
Did I say anything about holding out for everything?QuoteAsk for all of that, and you'll get some of it.
Some of it when? After the government shuts down? After people are out of work for however long? Fact is, they could shut the government down asking for all of it, but then they'd be the ones shutting down the government, they'd get the blame, they'd take a hit in public polls, and good luck winning the House or the Senate.
No, before that, when the GOP are trying to get the Democratic votes they need in the Senate.
We know that the public will blame the GOP for a shutdown over the Democrats.
We also know that everything I mentioned--net neutrality, protecting Dreamers, funding CHIP, and protecting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid--are popular (at least 60% on each). Legalization of marijuana's also pretty popular.
If you're asking for popular things, then you have the edge in messaging--we were asking for these highly popular things, and the GOP wouldn't give us any of them. It does not mean that you refuse to sign off on anything that doesn't include all of them.
The problem is that you don't start from the position you'd be happy to end up at. You start from a position beyond that (but not one that is unreasonable) so that you can reach the compromise you wanted all along. And the Democrats have been doing the former for far too long.
No, before that, when the GOP are trying to get the Democratic votes they need in the Senate.
We know that the public will blame the GOP for a shutdown over the Democrats.
We also know that everything I mentioned--net neutrality, protecting Dreamers, funding CHIP, and protecting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid--are popular (at least 60% on each). Legalization of marijuana's also pretty popular.
If you're asking for popular things, then you have the edge in messaging--we were asking for these highly popular things, and the GOP wouldn't give us any of them. It does not mean that you refuse to sign off on anything that doesn't include all of them.
The problem is that you don't start from the position you'd be happy to end up at. You start from a position beyond that (but not one that is unreasonable) so that you can reach the compromise you wanted all along. And the Democrats have been doing the former for far too long.
The fatal flaw to your reasoning is that even though those things are popular (and to varying degrees necessary), they are not more immediately necessary than funding the government. Theoretically, you could pass a clean raise to the debt ceiling and then subsequently address those issues, a point which is not lost on most American voters. In fact, in 2013 when the GOP shutdown the government to repeal the ACA, the law only had an approval rating of 40%, with a 50.5% disapproval rating. Nevertheless, the GOP was largely blamed for the shutdown, and voters simply felt that while the ACA was unpopular, it did not warrant shutting down the government.
No, before that, when the GOP are trying to get the Democratic votes they need in the Senate.
We know that the public will blame the GOP for a shutdown over the Democrats.
We also know that everything I mentioned--net neutrality, protecting Dreamers, funding CHIP, and protecting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid--are popular (at least 60% on each). Legalization of marijuana's also pretty popular.
If you're asking for popular things, then you have the edge in messaging--we were asking for these highly popular things, and the GOP wouldn't give us any of them. It does not mean that you refuse to sign off on anything that doesn't include all of them.
The problem is that you don't start from the position you'd be happy to end up at. You start from a position beyond that (but not one that is unreasonable) so that you can reach the compromise you wanted all along. And the Democrats have been doing the former for far too long.
The fatal flaw to your reasoning is that even though those things are popular (and to varying degrees necessary), they are not more immediately necessary than funding the government. Theoretically, you could pass a clean raise to the debt ceiling and then subsequently address those issues, a point which is not lost on most American voters. In fact, in 2013 when the GOP shutdown the government to repeal the ACA, the law only had an approval rating of 40%, with a 50.5% disapproval rating. Nevertheless, the GOP was largely blamed for the shutdown, and voters simply felt that while the ACA was unpopular, it did not warrant shutting down the government.
Okay, then, when do you fight for those policies?
So Bannon was forced to testify for the Congress and said that he doesn't have to answer about anything that happened in the White house because Trump told him not to...It could be a ploy by Bannon to hint that he does indeed have dirt and will release it unless Trump throws him a lifeline. Trump is shite at interpreting hints.
I guess he forgot that he could just say "I don't remember" 50 times in a row and that is perfectly legal. Because though both are shady we now have a Bannon on record saying that those specific topics are things that he was forbidden to talk about.
A view into how when you dehumanize people with terms like "illegals" they become some far away "other". Some Trump voters are shocked that their friends and members of their community are now being deported.
http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-42667659/the-missing-consequences-of-trump-s-immigration-crackdown (http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-42667659/the-missing-consequences-of-trump-s-immigration-crackdown)
A view into how when you dehumanize people with terms like "illegals" they become some far away "other". Some Trump voters are shocked that their friends and members of their community are now being deported.
http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-42667659/the-missing-consequences-of-trump-s-immigration-crackdown (http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-42667659/the-missing-consequences-of-trump-s-immigration-crackdown)
"But my friends are the good ones!"
No - the blame is placed squarely on the shoulders of the Repubs. I have seen polls that demonstrate this. People are not so blind as to ignore that Republicans control Senate, House and the Presidency and this still happened.
Mostly the president and his damned wall/ fence/ moat or whatever it is today. The good part of this is they have to have something on immigration by I think the 8th. So they're able to force the issue.
Or the Republicans could just do what they always do, lie and forget about the whole thing. Really, this was a terrible move by the Democrats. They traded away all their leverage in return for a few words from a man who can't be trusted. I don't think they could possibly have gotten less.
No - the blame is placed squarely on the shoulders of the Repubs. I have seen polls that demonstrate this. People are not so blind as to ignore that Republicans control Senate, House and the Presidency and this still happened.
What this guy said. Most polls are about 45% blaming the GOP, 25% blaming the dems. I do not know about the other 30%, but I suspect it includes options for blaming "both parties" or "the president"
What?
If I understood right the Democrats got a life saving program funded for 6 years for giving a temporary relief of 3 weeks to the Republicans. I don't see how anyone can see this as a loss for Democrats. If neither party budges the shutdown is imminent again in three weeks and the Democrats will have as much leverage then as before this deal.
I am consistently disgusted with the utter idiocy and simple-mindedness of the American voter.
IMO, things could be better if you HAVE to attend college in order to vote.
Remember: it's all about messaging. Here's the message I would have put out:Well put.
Democrats want to pass the Dream Act, protect Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, restore net neutrality, and fund CHIP. Republicans would rather shut down the government. #TrumpShutdown
Remember: it's all about messaging. Here's the message I would have put out:Well put.
Democrats want to pass the Dream Act, protect Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, restore net neutrality, and fund CHIP. Republicans would rather shut down the government. #TrumpShutdown
And the "Liberal Media" will swoon about how "Presidential" he was reading someone else's speech as long as he doesn't eat his tie on national TV.
Actually, even then...
Gotta love Trump riding high off of continued policies that have been ongoing since Obama's presidency. He acts like Unemployment being down, consumer confidence being up and wages going up are all brand new now since he became president, and absolutely nothing to do with him not passing any policy to really make any major changes yet to the economy in the last year. Well see where things are in four to eight years after Republicans really have a chance to effect the economy.
It kind of makes you wonder where they were going. My guess was it was like Christian 'conversion' therapy where they try to beat/shock/torture/gaslight the gay away*, but moreso Clockwork Oranging the last vestiges of humanity and empathy away.
* (which really is wrong, not just because it's morally wrong and intellectually wrong, but because if a bunch of blokes are going to go out to the woods in the middle of nowhere for a week to bond and focus on each other, surely that's the time to experiment, rather than repress?)
I mean, you could have 0% unemployment if you wanted--just institute slavery.
No kidding. They'd been slowly coming round to how expensive and wasteful, and excuse the tautology, punitive prisons are, then Trump gets in, Sessions starts fapping about locking black folk up again, other Republicans start drooling over fat oversight contracts and disenfranchisement, and if things really go tits up, you can get yourself a lovely slave labour force right there. Fuck the UN. Fuck human rights. Fuck happiness indexes and quality manufacturing. Combine that with shrieking about taxes, and there'll be 12 to a cell, 16 hr shifts, sawdust for meals, and it'll be for 50c a day, payable on release and they'd probably bill you for your gear too.
Slavery by any other name.
So the Nunes memo was released.
My thoughts are...... uh ok?
This is the major ground breaking thing that is going to stop the Mueller investigation against Donald Trump and possible Russian Collusion?
All the memo shows is that it's missing information as to how a FISA warrant was given in the fall of 2016 against Carter Page who has already been under investigation by the FBI for Russian Collusion since 2014. Carter page being a former foreign policy advisor to Donald Trump during his campaign. And it tries to pin the blame on the Steele dossier as a reason to investigate a man who had already been investigated for a few years prior to a continued FISA warrent.
This some how discredits the whole FBI and the whole Mueller investigation into the possible Russian collusion with Donald Trumps presidential campaign? (Who, might I add has time and time again made his actions look more and more fishy with a possible Russian Collusion. Not enforcing Russian sanctions that he himself signed into law, Held private closed door meeting with Russian diplomats where he shared secret intelligence, not to mention asking for loyalty from people in the FBI and wanting them to stop an investigation against him.)
All this will do is come the time Trump is caught for actually colluding with evidence against him the republican party will use this memo as an excuse of political Bias against the republican party and they won't issue for articles of impeachment and further obstruct the investigation and justice.
Man this Nunes memo was another shot in the dark for the GOP. One that utterly fails at doing what it said it'd do.
Ironbite-how are these idiots in power?
That's why we have a President right now from New York. It's no coincidence. People, you can hate it, if you want, but you're going to go against certain things that God has chosen to--to put his hand on. And watch--
"But how do you handle the things he did before he was a believer in Jesus?"
I--I only report the message.
"By the way, I hope you caught what I just said: the things he did before he was a believer in Jesus. Praise God for the blood; because of the blood of the Lamb, I don't have a past! How about you?"
Well, then, a lot of the people in the Bible should be disqualified. I think the key thing is what is God's plan now. God's plan is, and I've been prophesying this for years, Sid, that God would make America great, that happens to be their saying(?), 2020 God's going to make America greater. Again. 2024 they're gonna say God has made America greatest again. This isn't going away.
New York City--the reason why--9/11, our nation was pierced, this nation's never been the same, the nations of the Earth have never been the same. God is trying to reestablish a blood right. It's no coincidence the President is from New York, that's where the towers fell. He also is part of Trump Tower, towers fell, he was part of world trade, World Trade Center, because God is revisiting this nation to establish a blood right. Whoever gets the blood right gets the legal right to rule.
Why do we have rights as Christians to bind and loose? Because of the blood right that Jesus provided. But Jesus' blood, it brought something, it brought glory, because after he was crucified and his blood was shed the Holy Spirit was poured out. This is more than just about who's President. It's about a blood right being established by God so that his glory can come.
The enemy was working real hard to get the blood right. That's why he wants to keep boarding children. That's why he wants to continue its agenda, so that it has the legal right to rule and to push the Church out. God is coming. Nobody is gonna remove his Church. Nobody's gonna stand against the Church that he is raising up.
I must say that Joe Kennedy's response to the State of the Union has me quite enthusiastic about this young man. He represents a future, a generation - in a day and age where most politicians are septuagenarians and beyond, he is 37, young, vital and handsome.
There is also the name recognition present - he is a Kennedy. A family gifted with greatness and cursed at the same time with misfortune.
Of course it wouldn't be modern politics if the "geniuses" over at TYT didn't try and drudge up a hit piece on him for...not being Bernie or something.
Really makes me wonder what'll happen when Sanders, y'know, dies. He's not getting younger.
Okay, dpareja, I'm just going to stop right here and ask you something simple. What do you actually have against Joe Kennedy? What policies does he support that you oppose? What specific problem do you have with him taking a specific company's money in a campaign contribution? Because keep in mind, very rarely can a politician just get by without taking anyone's money. But I think my biggest question is why are you so hell bent on not liking him?
As for what policies he supports that I would oppose, it's more a matter of what he doesn't support. For instance, he has not cosponsored H.R. 676, which, since the last cosponsor of that bill signed on in late September 2017, implies that whatever he does support when it comes to health care reform, it is not single-payer.WTF!
As for what policies he supports that I would oppose, it's more a matter of what he doesn't support. For instance, he has not cosponsored H.R. 676, which, since the last cosponsor of that bill signed on in late September 2017, implies that whatever he does support when it comes to health care reform, it is not single-payer.WTF!
You don't have to cosponsor something in order to support it.
Consider H.R.3364 - Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act:
Passed the House: 419-3
Passed the Senate: 98-2
One sponsor. 5 co-sponsors.
Not even Trump would be retarded enough to say that this means the actual bill failed 6-(13)-516, and Trump would say almost anything. (He's the Meatloaf of bullshit, and even he'd put that 'argument' in his 'that' bucket. If it's not worthy of a Trump tweet, it's a whole new dimension of dumb!)
So only 5 people 'actively support' H.R.3364 - Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act? Is that your contention?
@dpareja
I think it's a bit much to assume that not co-sponsoring something means he's against single-payer. I remember before the 2008 campaign Barack Obama described himself as a fan of single payer health care. But then he turned around a supported Obamacare. And that's probably because he didn't think single payer was something he could accomplish, but Obamacare was. I don't know much about Joe Kennedy or the bill in question, but I could easily see him just think the bill isn't going to happen regardless of whether or not it should.
H.R. 3364 isn't a particularly great example here, because there wasn't very much time between its introduction and signing, never mind the House vote. In fact, half of the time spent between its introduction and its becoming law was the President considering what to do (sign, veto, take no action).Actually, I would contend the opposite. Most bills don't have a stack of cosponsors, so as a generalisation, that doesn't hold, and H.R. 3364 is one of the best examples of extremely strong support in recent times, even the Republicans actually put country over party idiocy on that one, and it's rapidity shows the strength of support, not it's cosponsor cheer squad.
Hah! The market dropped 1000 points today after Trump bragged about how great the stock market has been doing at his state of the union last week. Now presidents have little to no impact on the stock market or the economy in general. It's just great to see something he's bragging about blowing up in his face.
Sure sounds like it and it's because those Democrats don't want to deport people who've lived their entire lives here and are Americans in all but a piece of paper that says they are. Those monsters.
He's really fucking bad at not looking guilty.
If you like logical analysis, try this on. It's a bit of a long read, but I found it worth the time.
Are Trump Voters Irrational? (http://quillette.com/2017/09/28/trump-voters-irrational/)
You clearly have a different worldview than I do, and you clearly think that my worldview makes me a bad person. I'm sorry that you feel this way. As I stated before, we can agree to disagree, though I don't see the need or the value in personalizing it to the degree that you have.
When I said I thought long and hard about my vote, I wasn't lying. I considered the details - Trump University, the Access Hollywood tape, all of the rest. But despite that stuff, the alternative was still to vote for a candidate whose worldview, governing agenda, and political philosophy was more or less diametrically opposed to my own. When that's true, a lot of the details don't matter that much, because at the end of the day the results matter because the results are what we all have to live with. I don't know what results we would have gotten under President Hillary, but I'd be willing to bet that the range of outcomes would go from absolutely completely terrible to, at best, four years of not getting anything positive done while the existing problems continued to fester and get worse. In that scenario, it's not hard to go for an alternative with at least some chance of positive upside.
The fact that Trump has so far governed in the most Constitutional manner of any President this century has been an added pleasant surprise, especially since he didn't even really run on explicit Constitutionalism. That's definitely a result I can live with.
Trump has instructed his staff not to provide him written intelligence briefings, The Washington Post reported Friday, because he "rarely if ever reads" them. Instead, Trump indicated that he'd rather be updated on the intelligence matters du jour through "an oral briefing of select intelligence issues."
QuoteThe fact that Trump has so far governed in the most Constitutional manner of any President this century has been an added pleasant surprise, especially since he didn't even really run on explicit Constitutionalism. That's definitely a result I can live with.
QuoteThe fact that Trump has so far governed in the most Constitutional manner of any President this century has been an added pleasant surprise, especially since he didn't even really run on explicit Constitutionalism. That's definitely a result I can live with.
...HOW? I'm at a complete loss here. How?
...HOW? I'm at a complete loss here. How?Step 1: Pretend to take offense to the Patriot act, even though you secretly love it because deep down you believe they only spy on brown people.
.......so I guess all those court rulings against him are just...what, not counted?
Silly dpareja, framers' intent only matters when its convenient!
Silly dpareja, framers' intent only matters when its convenient!I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires.
Silly dpareja, framers' intent only matters when its convenient!I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires.
Susan B. Anthony
The same can be said for reading between the lines, when the thing they're reading between the lines of is the justification, or more likely, an appeal to authority.
Which of course gets to a frustrating quote I read about 15 years ago I haven't been able to find again, about religion being a post hoc justification, sanctifying evil. (It used none of those words). The gist of it was that without religion, good people would be good anyway, and it just provides an excuse for bad people to be complete dicks and feel superior about it to boot. (It probably used none of those words either.) It is pretty sad to see complete dicks sniffing around the constitution seeing if they can usurp it to cleanse their evil (and to recruit). A metaphorical fig leaf, if nudity was a malevolent crime...
Silly dpareja, framers' intent only matters when its convenient!I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires.
Susan B. Anthony
The same can be said for reading between the lines, when the thing they're reading between the lines of is the justification, or more likely, an appeal to authority.
Which of course gets to a frustrating quote I read about 15 years ago I haven't been able to find again, about religion being a post hoc justification, sanctifying evil. (It used none of those words). The gist of it was that without religion, good people would be good anyway, and it just provides an excuse for bad people to be complete dicks and feel superior about it to boot. (It probably used none of those words either.) It is pretty sad to see complete dicks sniffing around the constitution seeing if they can usurp it to cleanse their evil (and to recruit). A metaphorical fig leaf, if nudity was a malevolent crime...
I don't know if its the right quote, but yours reminded me of this: "Good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things. But for good people to do bad things, that takes religion."
Silly dpareja, framers' intent only matters when its convenient!I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires.
Susan B. Anthony
The same can be said for reading between the lines, when the thing they're reading between the lines of is the justification, or more likely, an appeal to authority.
Which of course gets to a frustrating quote I read about 15 years ago I haven't been able to find again, about religion being a post hoc justification, sanctifying evil. (It used none of those words). The gist of it was that without religion, good people would be good anyway, and it just provides an excuse for bad people to be complete dicks and feel superior about it to boot. (It probably used none of those words either.) It is pretty sad to see complete dicks sniffing around the constitution seeing if they can usurp it to cleanse their evil (and to recruit). A metaphorical fig leaf, if nudity was a malevolent crime...
I don't know if its the right quote, but yours reminded me of this: "Good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things. But for good people to do bad things, that takes religion."
Silly dpareja, framers' intent only matters when its convenient!I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires.
Susan B. Anthony
The same can be said for reading between the lines, when the thing they're reading between the lines of is the justification, or more likely, an appeal to authority.
Which of course gets to a frustrating quote I read about 15 years ago I haven't been able to find again, about religion being a post hoc justification, sanctifying evil. (It used none of those words). The gist of it was that without religion, good people would be good anyway, and it just provides an excuse for bad people to be complete dicks and feel superior about it to boot. (It probably used none of those words either.) It is pretty sad to see complete dicks sniffing around the constitution seeing if they can usurp it to cleanse their evil (and to recruit). A metaphorical fig leaf, if nudity was a malevolent crime...
I don't know if its the right quote, but yours reminded me of this: "Good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things. But for good people to do bad things, that takes religion."
I'd say a more accurate statement would be that it takes a strong ideological conviction and/or an authoritarian mindset. Many religious ideologies combine these two nicely but destructive secular ideologies are also able to seduce decent people. Religion is an easy and socially acceptable target but I'd argue that for example nationalism isn't much better in this regard.
Wouldn't take those polls to heart exactly. The Trump factor hasn't been thrown in.
Ironbite-took down Roy Moore in Alabama.
I don't know if its the right quote, but yours reminded me of this: "Good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things. But for good people to do bad things, that takes religion."Do know that one. Not sure if mine had something to do with Bertrand Russell or not, or I happened across it when I was coming across a lot of his stuff. It was a little longer, took a detour or two, and the language was a little more flowery - something like kindly men will be kindly anyways, but fucked if I can seem too ask Google the right question any more. It had been on a page with a bunch of other wonderful quotes and I found it once or twice by googling them and getting back to the page, but either its been reorganised or taken down, or I can't even get that right any longer... Little frustrating. Usually tend to give up after 15-20 minutes. Might have to go through my back-ups one day to see if I pinched the whole page and saved it as a text file. It was a nice resource.
I don't know if its the right quote, but yours reminded me of this: "Good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things. But for good people to do bad things, that takes religion."
I'd say a more accurate statement would be that it takes a strong ideological conviction and/or an authoritarian mindset. Many religious ideologies combine these two nicely but destructive secular ideologies are also able to seduce decent people. Religion is an easy and socially acceptable target but I'd argue that for example nationalism isn't much better in this regard.
Sure, but those approach fundamentalist religion in mindset. As Hitchens noted, the most religious state in the world is North Korea, where you wake up, go about your day, and fall asleep praising the Great Leader and the Dear Leader (I don't know what they're calling Un these days) all the while.
Despite having an even lower favorability rating from the American people than President Donald Trump, former 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton will selectively campaign for Democratic congressional hopefuls for the decisive 2018 midterm elections.
Clinton's favorability rating sank to a new low of 36 percent, according to a December Gallup poll compared to a 40 percent job approval rating for Trump in the most recent Gallup poll from early February. Jaime Harrison, an associate chairman and counselor for the Democratic National Committee, told The Washington Post that Clinton plans to help candidates campaign that have a history of supporting her and her family, but Harrison said "she’s not going to be up front."
Despite plans to campaign for some Democrats, advisors and friends of Clinton said the former secretary of state wants to keep a low enough profile so as not to attract criticism from Republican candidates. "The reality is Hillary is a nuisance to the Democrats and a gift to Republicans," Sam Nunberg, a former Trump aide told the Post.
She'll probably concentrate her attentions in areas that view her like a god.
This record of unparalleled, unmitigated failure lies solely at the feet of Barack Obama, .........[snip].........There was this thing called the GFC.
This record of unparalleled, unmitigated failure lies solely at the feet of Barack Obama, .........[snip].........There was this thing called the GFC.
This record of unparalleled, unmitigated failure lies solely at the feet of Barack Obama, .........[snip].........There was this thing called the GFC.
Oh, I'm aware of that. And I'm aware of how successfully the right-wing liars managed to pin the blame for that on Obama when it was accelerated in its onset by Bush. (It was coming anyway, after the deregulation under Clinton, but the Bush tax cuts and wars sped up the timetable.) But the fact remains: the four people I named were primarily in charge of the Democratic Party during that time (whether as President, DNC Chair, or the Presidential nominee), and during that same time all the losses I outlined took place.
To be clear: I have no personal grudge against Hillary Clinton and wish her no harm. I despise, however, her positions (particularly on economic and foreign policy) and think that the evidence shows that when her ideology is in control of the Democratic Party, it hampers the Democrats and empowers the Republicans, and I think that her presence on the campaign trail will only serve to remind people of everything they hate about her and her ilk, however limited her campaigning.
This record of unparalleled, unmitigated failure lies solely at the feet of Barack Obama, .........[snip].........There was this thing called the GFC.
Oh, I'm aware of that. And I'm aware of how successfully the right-wing liars managed to pin the blame for that on Obama when it was accelerated in its onset by Bush. (It was coming anyway, after the deregulation under Clinton, but the Bush tax cuts and wars sped up the timetable.) But the fact remains: the four people I named were primarily in charge of the Democratic Party during that time (whether as President, DNC Chair, or the Presidential nominee), and during that same time all the losses I outlined took place.
To be clear: I have no personal grudge against Hillary Clinton and wish her no harm. I despise, however, her positions (particularly on economic and foreign policy) and think that the evidence shows that when her ideology is in control of the Democratic Party, it hampers the Democrats and empowers the Republicans, and I think that her presence on the campaign trail will only serve to remind people of everything they hate about her and her ilk, however limited her campaigning.
So basically, we could've been spared 2014 and everything going forward from there if everyone just bowed their heads and went along with whatever Bernie Sanders spoke, and heeded his every word and voted for him instead of Clinton.
I also cannot help but see you basically telling people they should not have voted for Clinton and that Bernie was both a better candidate and spoke more to a "populist sentiment" that should have been heeded. So then, applying this logic, the minority voters who voted for Clinton over Sanders, by quite large numbers, should not have gone with her, but followed you and the many white voters of the Sanders campaign. Because I suppose according to this logic on display they do not know Good Progressivism, and should have obeyed their white saviors, and followed Sanders, as he and his supporters clearly know better than them what is good for them.
So I then must suppose you and other Sanders Supporters believe if only people had coalesced around Sanders instead of Clinton, then...what? You could have rode a wave of populist and in a number of cases protectionist support to the White House, and then commenced...hm, what is a good slogan for riding such a wave of support to the White House? Something catchy, indicating a return to greatness...Make America Excellent Again? How's that sound?
Because populists are ever interchangeable.
If Democratic primary and caucus voters had chosen Hillary Clinton in a fair contest, where the DNC had indeed been a neutral arbiter and not tilting the scales in favour of any particular candidate, then you would not see the sort of anger from the populist wing of the party that you see now.
Nonetheless Sanders voters voted for Clinton in the 2016 election in a much higher percentage than Clinton voters did for Obama in 2008--remember PUMAs?
As for populists being "ever interchangeable," that's a base slander and you know it. You cannot say with a straight face that Sanders would have pulled out of the Paris Climate Accords. You cannot say with a straight face that Sanders would have pushed for a repeal of the ACA. You cannot say with a straight face that Sanders would have put a crazy person like Neil Gorsuch on the Supreme Court or similarly insane, out-of-touch nuts on the lower federal courts. You cannot say with a straight face that Sanders would have pushed for tax cuts that will go almost entirely to the ultra-rich and blow a $1.5 trillion dollar hole in the deficit (kept so low only because they raise lower- and middle-class taxes by $4.5 trillion to "offset" the $6 trillion in cuts the rich get). You cannot say with a straight face that Sanders would have wiped away DACA like so much rubbish.
I can - and I do because of all our current populist has done. This election has convinced me of one thing - populism will always burn everything that came before it to ashes.
Sanders spoke of borders, he created an insurgent wing of the Democrats that routinely smears everyone not in their wing, and there was much the same "workers party" rhetoric.
Demagogues no matter their stripe are bad.
A political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument.
This is what happens when your only metric for success is popularity. Doesn't matter if you're a proven racist, barely literate, and rapidly succumbing to the ravages of old age; if you can appeal to lots of people, you're in.
'Murrica!
I see you were part of that focus group.
I see you were part of that focus group.
You win elections by giving people something to vote for, not just something to vote against.
I see you were part of that focus group.
You win elections by giving people something to vote for, not just something to vote against.
Wasn't that like 90% of Trump's campaign? Being against Clinton, being against everything Obama stood for, being against everything Democrats and liberals stand for?
Against "evil-rapist-Mexican-Jobstealers" , against NAFTA, against TPP.
In the current polarized political climate, we thought it would be interesting to ask which presidents were considered by presidency experts to be the most polarizing. To do so, we asked respondents to identify up to five individual presidents they believed were the most polarizing, and then rank order them with the first president being the most polarizing, the second as next most polarizing, and so on. We then calculated how many times a president was identified as well as their average ranking. The results of this question can be seen in the table below.
The Democrats are the party of Lisa Simpson, and the Republicans are proudly the party of Homer.
Trump held a "listening" session at the White House for people who have survived or been affected by school shootings. Two highlights I wanna bring to light.
(https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/180221182253-trump-notes-school-shooting-listening-session-exlarge-169.jpg)
This note card that he was apparently holding during the session. Not the points you can see on it. One of which is "I hear you". The fuck has to be reminded about that?
The other point is he wants to reopen the asylums.
Ironbite-let that sink in.
Presumably he's planning to exchange Melania soon for a new First Lady.
There is not enough popcorn in the fucking universe.
There is not enough popcorn in the fucking universe.
You'd have to basically launch all the corn in kansas into the sun followed by all the butter in denmark
Congress might step in on this one as he's gonna hurt the GOP's bottom line.
Ironbite-Corporate Masters are probably not liking this one bit.
And now he's praised China's President for making himself a dictator for life. And suggested that America should do the same.
As if we needed more proof that he wants to be a dictator.
Ya know, I'm okay with them refraining from talking gun control before the corpses are even cold. Tact has a place in politics just as it does in the rest of life.
And after Trump's genius tariff war that is going to happen Gary Cohn nopes the fuck out of the white house.
Any other presidency America would be flipping their shit about this. But with Trump people shrug their shoulders and say eh it's Wednesday.
Tillerson made the fatal mistake of saying something critical of Russia. He said that the nerve agent that was used in the assassination in UK came from Russia and if there's one thing that Trump won't tolerate, it's badmouthing Russia.
Wasn't there talk about Tillerson being Putin's pick for secretary of state anyway.
Asked by the New York Times last year whether he would consider Mueller examining his and his family’s finances a “red line”, Trump said: “I would say yeah. I would say yes. By the way, I would say, I don’t – I don’t – I mean, it’s possible there’s a condo or something, so, you know, I sell a lot of condo units, and somebody from Russia buys a condo, who knows?”
[Trump campaign treasurer Bradley] Crate told CNBC that the campaign sent Dowd a refund check for $300 on January 3, a few days too late to be reflected in their fourth quarter filing to the FEC. He said it will appear on its next quarterly report to the FEC, to be released in April. Dowd said he had received the check.
Also note how Trump once again couldn't be face to face with the person he fired. Tillerson was fired while he was on an official diplomatic mission on a different continent.
Ben Carson's got my money.That's a good bet. Trump probably has forgotten he even exists so he is safe for now.
One party says, 'I can't wait to just nominate all these war criminals, it's going to be fucking wonderful,' and the opposition party goes, 'Yeah, but those war criminals better be even more hawkish.'
So not only is she the first woman appointed to that position, she's also the first war criminal with outstanding warrants to be appointed to that spot too?
So not only is she the first woman appointed to that position, she's also the first war criminal with outstanding warrants to be appointed to that spot too?
I'd be pretty surprised if she's the first war criminal appointed to the position, but then I think much of what the US does outside its own borders constitutes war crimes.
So not only is she the first woman appointed to that position, she's also the first war criminal with outstanding warrants to be appointed to that spot too?
I'd be pretty surprised if she's the first war criminal appointed to the position, but then I think much of what the US does outside its own borders constitutes war crimes.
Usually the war crimes happen after being appointed though.
How many own goals for republicans this year? Between this guy and Roy Moore's scandal, and everyone and their grandma resigning from the Administration...
That or stop voting. If government doesn't work, why are you putting asses in seats?Because if you don't vote in people who fight the government power, communists will transform the government into a dictatorship and after all the God-fearing NRA members have been exterminated in FEMA camps the survivors are forced into gay marriages and to live in hobbit homes.
That or stop voting. If government doesn't work, why are you putting asses in seats?Because if you don't vote in people who fight the government power, communists will transform the government into a dictatorship and after all the God-fearing NRA members have been exterminated in FEMA camps the survivors are forced into gay marriages and to live in hobbit homes.
What if people are already gay married? Are they made to double gay marry?
Does Trump not realize how guilty he's making himself look?We're assuming a lot of thinking going on in the toupeed dome of the shitgibbon aren't we? Besides, this comes from the guy who bragged that he could shoot someone and not lose faith with his mindless horde!
This..... I..... well. I'll just let it speak for itself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxIUiW86x9w
The rabbits face after he says Tippy Top Shape says it all.
The North-Korean tactic, eh?
I'd say that Trump thinks "L'état, c'est moi!" except that he'd actually have to be minimally knowledgeable to know that.
I'd say that Trump thinks "L'état, c'est moi!" except that he'd actually have to be minimally knowledgeable to know that.
And Louis XIV was actually successful and competent. I cringe to think of what Trump would be like with absolute power.
Trump apparently coordinated with Russia about the attack before it happened, so the noise about Russia and consequences is just that - noise. I'd expect this place to be a bit, I dunno, smarter than going into everything with doomsaying.
TVTropes' On Topic Conversations got to that little bit.
Its very possible Trump and possibly Russia intended for this to be a distracting bit of theatre to deal with the Mueller probe.
I wonder what it is Hannity is hiding.
CNN reported Monday that according to sources inside the Trump administration, the president is using his personal cell phone and not the White House switchboard because “he doesn’t want Kelly to know who he’s talking to.”
Early in Kelly’s tenure as chief of staff, it was common practice for him to either listen in on Trump’s calls using the White House phone or to check the printout of the president’s phone use. Amid reports of growing tensions between the two men, in which the president has aimed to circumvent his chief of staff, Kelly has been increasingly left out of the loop.
Don't look too harshly at this. Most people are thinking he won't really last as long as Tillerson did. And even if he does, a Democratic Congress will be the first to successfully impeach Trump and Peance has to fill his own cabinet.
Ironbite-also 5 of the 7 Democrats are living in Trump landslide states and are trying to limit campaign damage.
Don't look too harshly at this. Most people are thinking he won't really last as long as Tillerson did. And even if he does, a Democratic Congress will be the first to successfully impeach Trump and Peance has to fill his own cabinet.
Ironbite-also 5 of the 7 Democrats are living in Trump landslide states and are trying to limit campaign damage.
Except that Trump is sinking in popularity even in those states. Voting against his picks and campaigning on how Trump broke his promises (get out of war, drain the swamp) and you're holding him to those promises has, I think, a better chance of being successful than voting with Trump.
Don't look too harshly at this. Most people are thinking he won't really last as long as Tillerson did. And even if he does, a Democratic Congress will be the first to successfully impeach Trump and Peance has to fill his own cabinet.
Ironbite-also 5 of the 7 Democrats are living in Trump landslide states and are trying to limit campaign damage.
Except that Trump is sinking in popularity even in those states. Voting against his picks and campaigning on how Trump broke his promises (get out of war, drain the swamp) and you're holding him to those promises has, I think, a better chance of being successful than voting with Trump.
I wonder if skepticism of the polls is playing a part. Remember how many predicted a Clinton landslide?
Don't look too harshly at this. Most people are thinking he won't really last as long as Tillerson did. And even if he does, a Democratic Congress will be the first to successfully impeach Trump and Peance has to fill his own cabinet.
Ironbite-also 5 of the 7 Democrats are living in Trump landslide states and are trying to limit campaign damage.
Except that Trump is sinking in popularity even in those states. Voting against his picks and campaigning on how Trump broke his promises (get out of war, drain the swamp) and you're holding him to those promises has, I think, a better chance of being successful than voting with Trump.
I wonder if skepticism of the polls is playing a part. Remember how many predicted a Clinton landslide?
The results there were within the margin of error.
Don't look too harshly at this. Most people are thinking he won't really last as long as Tillerson did. And even if he does, a Democratic Congress will be the first to successfully impeach Trump and Peance has to fill his own cabinet.
Ironbite-also 5 of the 7 Democrats are living in Trump landslide states and are trying to limit campaign damage.
Except that Trump is sinking in popularity even in those states. Voting against his picks and campaigning on how Trump broke his promises (get out of war, drain the swamp) and you're holding him to those promises has, I think, a better chance of being successful than voting with Trump.
I wonder if skepticism of the polls is playing a part. Remember how many predicted a Clinton landslide?
The results there were within the margin of error.
This. FiveThirtyEight had Trump at a 25% chance of winning. That's the same percentage as rolling a D4 and coming up with a 1.
Trump supporters have a very predictable relationship with polls. Remember when the Rasmussen poll had Trump at 51% approval? Well, they were championing it as "proof" that Trump was actually popular, despite every other major poll having him at 45%, at best, with the FiveThirtyEight aggregate putting him at 40.1%. When a poll says something they like, then the poll is true. When a poll says something they don't like, well, let's just say that if I had a dollar for every time I saw a Trump supporter say something along the lines of "those same polls said Hillary was guaranteed to win," I could buy a video card in the current Bitcoin destroyed market.
Why is Trump pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal? Everyone from generals, to members of congress to other countries that are partnered in the deal are saying it's a bad idea to pull out of it, but I can't see why Trump wants to pull out of it so badly other than the fact that Obama did it.
This fucking president is a nightmare how his approval ratings are so high is beyond me.
That's about all he's got going for him right now. His base. A base that couldn't get a Republican voted in Alabama.
Ironbite-granted Roy Moore was a cock sucking pedophile but he was a Republican.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/05/21/trump-vs-the-deep-state (https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/05/21/trump-vs-the-deep-state)
Dear god, this is a read. Warning, very long article, but it basically goes into detail about how Trump and his administration is basically dismantling the whole government and replacing it all with people personally loyal to Trump. Lots of detail. The long and short of it is basically what we already know, that Trump is sidelining people who either disagreed with him or just don't agree with him enough and putting in their place people who are personally loyal to him and are willing to trumpet that loyalty, and how it's producing big problems. But it's still fascinating and a little shocking to actually read it.
While I highly applaud the Senate I don't see either the house or Trump accepting this.
While I highly applaud the Senate I don't see either the house or Trump accepting this.
I really hope the Dems make (or have made) this an election issue.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/17/politics/mo-brooks-nasa-climate-change/index.html
I know this doesn't have to do with Trump, and more the GOP. But the lengths that congressmen will go to protect the money they receive from Oil companies astounds me to the point where they will make shit up.
That's actually the whole point of the Amendment process. To overturn the Supreme Court decisions. It's why the SCOTUS very rarely contradicts itself regardless of what laws are thrown at it. Even if you throw a million anti-Roe vs. Wade laws at it, SCOTUS will refuse to even hear the cases because it doesn't contradict itself.
Ironbite-its why anti-abortion laws die so often.
That's actually the whole point of the Amendment process. To overturn the Supreme Court decisions. It's why the SCOTUS very rarely contradicts itself regardless of what laws are thrown at it. Even if you throw a million anti-Roe vs. Wade laws at it, SCOTUS will refuse to even hear the cases because it doesn't contradict itself.
Ironbite-its why anti-abortion laws die so often.
Scientists study Trump Voters have confirmed that they are not motivated by economic issues but because they are afraid of white men losing their power in society.
https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2018/04/heres-actually-drives-trump-supporters-may-shock/
Also scientific studies find that water is wet and fire is hot.
Lana: Let me see this study, so I can whitewash some racists!
I linked The Dynamic Paragon of Reverse Anal to a fivethirtyeight article, citing a Harvard study I believe, that said the exact same thing. Lana ignored it for a month before saying "you will just alienate republican moderates by saying racism was a strong factor among people voting for Trump."
Reagan took that exact position toward South African apartheid. Reagan's policy only served to prolong apartheid, normalize it among the white moderates, and send a message to the world that America tacitly condoned such racism. Fuck your "what about the mawdawitts" argument.
It is notable that many attitudes and attributes identified as possible explanations for Trump’s support among white working-class voters were not significant independent predictors. Gender, age, region, and religious affiliation were not significant demographic factors in the model. Views about gender roles and attitudes about race were also not significant.
Fears about cultural displacement. White working-class voters who say they often feel like a stranger in their own land and who believe the U.S. needs protecting against foreign influence were 3.5 times more likely to favor Trump than those who did not share these concerns.
How does that sit with this:QuoteFears about cultural displacement. White working-class voters who say they often feel like a stranger in their own land and who believe the U.S. needs protecting against foreign influence were 3.5 times more likely to favor Trump than those who did not share these concerns.
No one's worried about Trump directing the commerce department to fix the jobs situation for ZTE?
Do you think it related to trying to stop the Trade war or his own personal venality?
Do you think it related to trying to stop the Trade war or his own personal venality?
I think he's so set on "winning" this trade war that he doesn't realize, or he's undervaluing, the attendant security risks.
Do you think it related to trying to stop the Trade war or his own personal venality?
I think he's so set on "winning" this trade war that he doesn't realize, or he's undervaluing, the attendant security risks.
So unrelated to the $500 million loan to his property in Jakarta?
The Constitution says that the President may nominate anyone to the bench, but the nominee receives the appointment only with the "Advice and Consent of the Senate". The Senate advised the President to either nominate someone who shared Justice Scalia's political philosophy or wait until after the coming election. The President declined the advice, and so the Senate declined consent.
President Obama did nominate somebody to fill the seat. Republicans rejected the nominee by declining to take action on the nomination. The Senate has rejected nominees through inaction for two hundred years (http://www.jamesjheaney.com/2016/02/16/the-longest-confirmation-battle-in-history/).
The idea that the rule of law was "perverted" here is -- to put it in the most charitable possible terms -- legally absurd. The progressive reading of the Garland/Gorsuch saga completely erases the "advice and consent" clause from the Constitution. The Senate did its constitutional duty in refusing to approve the imprudent Garland nomination.
What really happened here is that the Republicans violated a perceived behavioral norm that judicial nominees with good credentials ought to be approved by the Senate regardless of ideology. These norms are not legally binding, but it may be prudent to follow them. However, Republicans (correctly) believe that the Democrats violated (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bork_Supreme_Court_nomination) that norm in 1988, trampled it half to death (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_judicial_appointment_controversies) from 2002-2005, and finally threw it in the garbage (http://www.jamesjheaney.com/2013/11/22/no-republicans-have-not-blocked-82-obama-nominees/) in 2014. They retaliated in kind. The Gorsuch appointment settles a debt that was created by Teddy Kennedy when he walked out on the Senate floor to give his "Robert Bork's America" speech. It wasn't pretty, but I don't see that Republicans had any viable choice -- a political party can't unilaterally norms the opposite party has discarded.
Nor, for that matter, do I think it was particularly prudent to follow that particular norm in the first place. Mere politesse should give way when the fate of the country is at stake, and the Democrats figured that out 28 years before the Republicans. The rule of law must be upheld; the rule of unwritten 1960s-era senatorial etiquette may be discarded.
So they stole a seat and it lead to stripping away of employee's rights.
Ironbite-that make that right?
Alright if that's how it is, I don't want to fucking hear them bitching when the Dems do it to them as well.
Alright if that's how it is, I don't want to fucking hear them bitching when the Dems do it to them as well.
Don't worry, they will. After all, the Democrats bitched over Garland.
Where I really don't want to hear them bitching is if the Democrats push through health insurance reform with even less process than the Republicans used to try to repeal the ACA (until they actually did eviscerate it in their tax-increase/reparations/fuck-blue-states bill). Someone remind me: how many hearings were held on the ACA?
...let us be clear-eyed and tough-minded in assessing what’s happened to our country — and why. How else can we salvage it from the likes of “A Trumper” who says Trump was needed to “get things back in order” after the “terrible job” done by President Obama?
He wrote: “We’re sick of paying welfare to so many of your brothers who don’t know what work and integrity mean. I hope you keep writing these articles and reminding my White Christian brothers that we did the right thing and we need to re elect Trump.”
I have two words for those progressives who think it’s possible to “reason” with that:
You first. (https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/trump-supporters-speak/)
No, you are not getting the point. That is not a handful of emails, it's thousands of emails to one columnist and we have already seen that there are millions of messages like that going to people who the Trump-fans see as enemies.
I have, however, heard from hundreds like “Matthew,” who worries about “immigrants” and “Gerald,” who thinks people of color have an “alliance” against him.
These people are the loudest Trump supporters and more than a tiny minority. The others either have their heads stuck up their assess or fully accept them as the representatives of their cause because there's no way otherwise to miss all this hate they spew.
Kid. Have you ever been on the internet? The media is not exaggerating the hate from Trump supporters.
While Lana is not prepared to accept this rather anecdotal exposition our g.i.r.l. is also not prepared to accept the statistical studies either.
I really hope he doesn't run again. I may have supported him during the 2016 primaries, but can't we get some younger blood in there? I can't imagine that the Democrats can't put someone against Trump that isn't as old as the dinosaurs. It doesn't help matters that he was never popular among minority voters. He would be more likely to get the black vote than Trump, but that's not saying much.
I really hope he doesn't run again. I may have supported him during the 2016 primaries, but can't we get some younger blood in there? I can't imagine that the Democrats can't put someone against Trump that isn't as old as the dinosaurs. It doesn't help matters that he was never popular among minority voters. He would be more likely to get the black vote than Trump, but that's not saying much.
Sanders has the same issue that Hillary has. There's already negative PR campaign against him. If he chooses to run the GOP (and foreign influence) can easily build up their anti-Sanders message on top of the old stuff.
...Which is made worse by the same forces helping Sanders win the primary because he is the most "destructive" candidate for the Democrats while it is also questionable if he can win against a GOP candidate.
Also, he really is old, you guys are better off finding a younger candidate.
And Trump is pardoning (https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/31/politics/trump-dinesh-dsouza-pardon/index.html) felon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinesh_D'Souza#Election_campaign_finance_conviction) Dinesh D'Souza (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Dinesh_D%27Souza).
The list is now Joe Arpaio, Scooter Libby, and Dinesh D'Souza. In essence, you break the law for conservative causes, and you'll likely get a pardon.
D'souza's movies are only good for riffing and he's a snake oil salesman. What's next for him? An official propaganda minister position?
Yeah, I would have [Kim Jong-un]. Yeah, I think it's something that could happen, yeah. Hey, he's the head of a county, and I mean he is the strong head. Don't let anyone think anything different. He speaks and his people sit up at attention. I want my people to do the same.
Not even hiding it.
Ironbite-and Hilary would've done the same damn thing right?
TAKE A FUCKING GUESS!
I think it's absolutely disgusting that the Trump administration has put a policy in order that separates parents from their children at the border. Then goes on to say how they don't like that policy but they can't do anything about it because it was a law made by the democrats which is a flat out lie. Because the population is dumb enough to believe that.
That's basically what the GOP is doing right now. And the thing is....it'd be so simple to just say no to this dick bag and save their seats.
Ironbite-they don't want to do that for some reason.
Wow, attacking children to promote her agenda? That's low even for Mann Coulter.
Wow, attacking children to promote her agenda? That's low even for Mann Coulter.
Seriously?
If you're going to insult people, can you do so in a way that isn't dripping with casual transmisogyny?
THERE WAS NO TITANIC! IT WAS ALL MADE UP BY HOLLYWOOD TO SELL MOVIES!Wow, attacking children to promote her agenda? That's low even for Mann Coulter.
Seriously?
If you're going to insult people, can you do so in a way that isn't dripping with casual transmisogyny?
Pardon my ignorance, but how is saying that a cis woman looks mannish transmisogynistic?
...And Trump saw Coulter on TV and is now blindly repeating her comment.
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/06/trump-suggests-immigrant-kids-hes-holding-hostage-crisis-actors/
THERE WAS NO TITANIC! IT WAS ALL MADE UP BY HOLLYWOOD TO SELL MOVIES!Wow, attacking children to promote her agenda? That's low even for Mann Coulter.
Seriously?
If you're going to insult people, can you do so in a way that isn't dripping with casual transmisogyny?
Pardon my ignorance, but how is saying that a cis woman looks mannish transmisogynistic?
I mean, look, I read today about a ten-year-old girl with Down Syndrome who was taken from her mother and put in a cage--
Womp, womp.
--I read about a--did you say "Womp womp" to a ten-year-old with Down Syndrome being taken from her mother and--
What I said is you can pick anything you want to but the bottom line--
How dare you. How dare you!
--is very clear: when you cross the border illegally--
How absolutely dare you, sir!
--you have given up the right--
How dare you!
https://twitter.com/passantino/status/1009220051172495361?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-773412632594637281.ampproject.net%2F1529449959701%2Fframe.htmlQuote from: Zac PetkanasI mean, look, I read today about a ten-year-old girl with Down Syndrome who was taken from her mother and put in a cage--Quote from: Corey LewandowskiWomp, womp.Quote from: Zac Petkanas--I read about a--did you say "Womp womp" to a ten-year-old with Down Syndrome being taken from her mother and--Quote from: Corey LewandowskiWhat I said is you can pick anything you want to but the bottom line--Quote from: Zac PetkanasHow dare you. How dare you!Quote from: Corey Lewandowski--is very clear: when you cross the border illegally--Quote from: Zac PetkanasHow absolutely dare you, sir!Quote from: Corey Lewandowski--you have given up the right--Quote from: Zac PetkanasHow dare you!
When your reaction to a ten-year-old with Down Syndrome being separated from her mother is "Womp womp" I can only conclude that you are an immoral rules-lawyering piece-of-shit cretin who qualifies as a human being only on physiological grounds.
And said immoral rules-lawyering piece-of-shit barely-human cretin was Trump's campaign manager at one point.
--rights of this country. We are a country with borders, we are a country of laws. And when you choose to cross this country illegally, your parents can understand this, they understand something very clearly: when you cross the border illegally, when you commit a crime, you are taken away from your family and that's how this country works. You go to any country in the world--
We have infants that are being taken from their mothers. We have infants that are being stolen from their mothers and put into cages, and you go "Womp womp"? This just exemplifies... How dare you, sir. How dare you. She has Down Syndrome and she was taken from her mother. How--
Nobody can hear when you both talk, so... All right, Zac. Hold on, Corey. Let's get Zac--
Ernesto Padron is a former Border Patrol agent who was forced to resign from the agency in 2010 after being charged with possession of child pornography, which is a second-degree felony. Padron’s prosecution dragged on and the charges were only dismissed years later due to a massive case backlog which resulted in the statute of limitations being allowed to expire, according to the Cameron County District Attorney’s Office...
...Padron’s child pornography charges were “eventually” discovered by higher-ups and he was immediately suspended from his position. Padron was later axed entirely due to mass-layoffs in May 2017. Prior to his suspension and eventual firing, Padron worked at Southwest Key’s Casa Padre detention center as a case manager for unaccompanied immigrant children...
...It is presently unclear how long Padron was employed by Southwest Key before his suspension, but according to Texas Monthly, he was still employed and working there as of last year...
...According to Wednesday’s report, state regulators have repeatedly sanctioned Southwest Key for failing to properly vet their employees at child detention centers across the Lone Star State...
THERE WAS NO TITANIC! IT WAS ALL MADE UP BY HOLLYWOOD TO SELL MOVIES!Wow, attacking children to promote her agenda? That's low even for Mann Coulter.
Seriously?
If you're going to insult people, can you do so in a way that isn't dripping with casual transmisogyny?
Pardon my ignorance, but how is saying that a cis woman looks mannish transmisogynistic?
THERE WAS NO TITANIC! IT WAS ALL MADE UP BY HOLLYWOOD TO SELL MOVIES!Wow, attacking children to promote her agenda? That's low even for Mann Coulter.
Seriously?
If you're going to insult people, can you do so in a way that isn't dripping with casual transmisogyny?
Pardon my ignorance, but how is saying that a cis woman looks mannish transmisogynistic?
Saying that a cis woman "looks mannish" as a way to insult her is transmisogynistic. You know who else is a woman who "looks mannish"? Me. Because, y'know, that extended period where I had lots of testosterone in my bloodstream had side effects. I kind of object to my appearance being used as an insult, for some reason.
Beyond that, that specific phrase has a history of being used to imply Ann Coulter "is really a man". Not because people believed it, of course, but as a reflection of the idea that being a trans woman is shameful and disgusting and so it is a convenient attack on someone you don't like.
THERE WAS NO TITANIC! IT WAS ALL MADE UP BY HOLLYWOOD TO SELL MOVIES!Wow, attacking children to promote her agenda? That's low even for Mann Coulter.
Seriously?
If you're going to insult people, can you do so in a way that isn't dripping with casual transmisogyny?
Pardon my ignorance, but how is saying that a cis woman looks mannish transmisogynistic?
Saying that a cis woman "looks mannish" as a way to insult her is transmisogynistic. You know who else is a woman who "looks mannish"? Me. Because, y'know, that extended period where I had lots of testosterone in my bloodstream had side effects. I kind of object to my appearance being used as an insult, for some reason.
Beyond that, that specific phrase has a history of being used to imply Ann Coulter "is really a man". Not because people believed it, of course, but as a reflection of the idea that being a trans woman is shameful and disgusting and so it is a convenient attack on someone you don't like.
THERE WAS NO TITANIC! IT WAS ALL MADE UP BY HOLLYWOOD TO SELL MOVIES!Wow, attacking children to promote her agenda? That's low even for Mann Coulter.
Seriously?
If you're going to insult people, can you do so in a way that isn't dripping with casual transmisogyny?
Pardon my ignorance, but how is saying that a cis woman looks mannish transmisogynistic?
Saying that a cis woman "looks mannish" as a way to insult her is transmisogynistic. You know who else is a woman who "looks mannish"? Me. Because, y'know, that extended period where I had lots of testosterone in my bloodstream had side effects. I kind of object to my appearance being used as an insult, for some reason.
Beyond that, that specific phrase has a history of being used to imply Ann Coulter "is really a man". Not because people believed it, of course, but as a reflection of the idea that being a trans woman is shameful and disgusting and so it is a convenient attack on someone you don't like.
Pretty much. It mind-boggles me that Lana, a trans-woman, does not understand that.
The idea that you can be trans without having gender dysphoria or wanting to transition seems strange to me, but then again, when it comes to trans people, I'm an outsider looking in.
HAHAHAH! LANA THINKS WE DON'T HAVE MEMORIES!
Kennedy is reitiring. The Conservatives, particularly the Trump-wing, will dominate SCOTUS for decades.
I hope everyone that cried about how Hillary would be “just as bad” or that Trump would be “better for progressive in the long-run” are content. Because they are the reason why we can’t have nice things.
Thanks to Gerrymandering, the Democrats will never have 67. Never. It just won't happen.
Ironbite-best they can get is 60 and hope 5 Republicans jump.
Thanks to Gerrymandering, the Democrats will never have 67. Never. It just won't happen.
Ironbite-best they can get is 60 and hope 5 Republicans jump.
The Senate, not the House. What blocks them in the Senate is voter suppression legislation (and apathy/disenchantment in the Democratic base), not gerrymandered maps.
Personally I'm keeping a close eye on places like NE-2nd.
Thanks to Gerrymandering, the Democrats will never have 67. Never. It just won't happen.
Ironbite-best they can get is 60 and hope 5 Republicans jump.
The Senate, not the House. What blocks them in the Senate is voter suppression legislation (and apathy/disenchantment in the Democratic base), not gerrymandered maps.
Personally I'm keeping a close eye on places like NE-2nd.
What is the Senate but Gerrymandering based on states? It is Gerrymandering that just happens to be approved by the Constitution. Fucking Wyoming gets the same number of Senators as Cali-fucking-fornia. Playing the "it's voter suppression not gerrymandering" is a weak argument when the whole Senate map is, to a degree, arbitrarily drawn.
Oh come the fuck on. So now it's Clinton's fault that the Republicans and Fox news spent 20 years smearing her? Because that's the biggest reason why people hated her.
...that people on the left thought she was a bad candidate.
Oh come the fuck on. So now it's Clinton's fault that the Republicans and Fox news spent 20 years smearing her? Because that's the biggest reason why people hated her.
Yes. It can't be that she pushed DOMA (and then didn't support same-sex marriage until 2013), voted for the Iraq War, pushed Obama to renege on the deal with Libya, or voted to ban flag-burning that people on the left thought she was a bad candidate.
Whenever a Justice Democrat needs to feel better about his or her position, out come the donor lists and shouts of "CORPORATE WHOOOOOORE!" and "YOU ARE NOT A GOOD PROGRESSIVE!!"
the Democrats treating her becoming President as a foregone conclusion was just as detrimental as anything she actually did.
You say that like having principals is a bad thing.
Anyway back on topic he says July 9th is going to be when he names the new pick, and it could be a woman!
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/29/politics/trump-supreme-court-nominee-two-women-july-9/index.html
Very progressive of him.
You say that like having principals is a bad thing.
Anyway back on topic he says July 9th is going to be when he names the new pick, and it could be a woman!
Very progressive of him.
I have to wonder if you've noticed how much shit Joe Manchin, Joe Crowley, Steny Hoyer, Chuck Schumer, and Andrew Cuomo get (or have gotten) from progressives.
You say that like having principals is a bad thing.
A lot of voters, particularly in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan, had "principles." As a result, we didn't get an uninspiring liberal, we got a man who slashed corporate tax at the expense of the poor, who has curtailed gender, racial, and queer equality through executive order, who tried to take health care from 32 million people, who will appoint at least 2 judges and secure a conservative Supreme Court for most of the rest of our lives, who just declared a multi-front trade war against our top 5 trade allies, while fellating Putin every chance he gets (wants Russia in the G-7, refuses or dawdles to impose sanctions against Russia, hell when asked who he supports for the World Cup he gives a non-committal answer before immediately praising Russia for doing a "good job" on "venue").
See what your "principles" got you. And to kick this dead horse, way to play a red herring. You know that I wasn't talking about being a principled person, but about this selective purity test that only seemed to get played against Hillary in the last election, and against Kamala Harris, Deval Patrick, and Cory Booker (https://newrepublic.com/article/144289/democrats-still-no-idea-talk-black-politicians). It is an insidious form of sexism and racism to demand ideological purity from black people and women, but then to grant Bernie countless free passes and blind eyes: he has accepted "big money" including from the NRA, he previously had an A+ NRA rating, he said--on national television--as recently as 2006 that he supported "Hillary Clinton's" crime bill and opposed gay marriage, he voted for the largest Wall Street Deregulation ever. Where is his ideological purity test? *Crickets*
This double standard exists, and it comes from somewhere: naivety, cult of personality, or maybe just simple racism and sexism. I don't know, and broad, uniform statements hardly apply so easily to an entire group of people. I just want people to start looking at the bigger picture than on minutia: Booker, Patrick, Harris, Clinton, and Bernie would all very be liberal presidents (and to be fair, Bernie is slightly to the left than the others, albeit nominal), unlike who they run against. And to take this full circle, Anthony Kennedy.
Anyway back on topic he says July 9th is going to be when he names the new pick, and it could be a woman!
Very progressive of him.
Oh you sweet summer child.
I judt find it confusing that the people with "principles" will rather vote for Trump or not vote at all rather than voting for candidates who are closer to the failed candidate that they originally wanted.
The way you talk about principals rather unintentionally it seems revealed more than you think it does.
I have not seen Hillary go through anything that the white men Dpareja listed hadn't. And not to mention that Bernie Sanders himself was often put through purity tests alongside the other democratic candidates of 2016 when BLM protested his rally and he let the activists take over the mic he was scheduled to speak on. A lot of what you're regurgitating is strawmen against progressives made up by the (center-right) DNC.
Bernie was a better choice overall because he was more inspiring, and gave off the vibe the people could trust him to represent our interests. Even if he held positions certain subgroups of voters wouldn't fully agree on. You think Bernie didn't get heavy scrutiny though? Really? Were we watching the same election?
It really feels like you care more about loyalty to a party that would just as soon sell you out if people to the right of them paid them enough money.
Quote from: QueenofHeartsAnyway back on topic he says July 9th is going to be when he names the new pick, and it could be a woman!
Very progressive of him.
Oh you sweet summer child.
You know what I mean. Hillary was not the more progressive choice just because she was female. She and her supporters had blanket labeled progressives as sexist for not being team #ImWithHer.
(and to be fair, Bernie is slightly to the left than the others, albeit nominal).... And to take this full circle, Anthony Kennedy.
he has accepted "big money" including from the NRA, he previously had an A+ NRA rating, he said--on national television--as recently as 2006 that he supported "Hillary Clinton's" crime bill and opposed gay marriage, he voted for the largest Wall Street Deregulation ever. Where is his ideological purity test? *Crickets*
Yeah but the guy who replaced him is pretty much in bed with the coal industry.
Ironbite-but I guess kicking out a paranoid loon was pretty good.
Good riddance to that slimeball.
In other news, Trump's backpedaled on Roe v. Wade. He says he won't bring it up with SCOTUS nominees (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-wont-bring-up-roe-v-wade-with-supreme-court-nominees/). Not surprising, given his notorious inconsistency.
Ironbite-and how the GOP is gonna spin this.
At least he didn't choose the utter lunatic the religious loons wanted.
Amy Barrett.
She was the religious right's poster girl. They were saying she was God's anointed one for the Supreme Court.
So just knowing THAT, I know she's a complete and total fucking lunatic.
he has accepted "big money" including from the NRA, he previously had an A+ NRA rating, he said--on national television--as recently as 2006 that he supported "Hillary Clinton's" crime bill and opposed gay marriage, he voted for the largest Wall Street Deregulation ever. Where is his ideological purity test? *Crickets*
A couple of these claims need some checking. I had hoped someone else would have done it since I don't really care to involve myself in this debate.
the highest rating Sanders has had from NRA was a C- (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jan/20/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-nra-report-card-d-minus-most-recent/) and the most common one has been an F. NRA didn't give any money to him, they had an $18 000 ad campaign against his opponent (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/apr/14/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-has-been-largely-ve/) in his first House election since the Republican representative in question had voted for the assault weapon ban and as a result NRA saw Sanders as the lesser evil. Whether this ended up being true is debatable since while Sanders has a mixed record with gun legislation in general (12 votes for control, 13 against) he has consistently voted for banning assault weapons and high capacity magazines.
When it comes to gay marriage it's a bit difficult to get an exact reading on Sanders's past. While opposing anything restricting it he has been very careful with his words and timing when supporting it. (http://time.com/4089946/bernie-sanders-gay-marriage/) The one time in 2006 when he said he doesn't think Vermont should legalise gay marriage it was qualified statement: "not right now, not after what we went through." This is immediately after he helped shoot down a proposed constitutional amendment defining marriage as heterosexual only so it seems he wanted to wait for emotions to settle down from this confrontation first. IMO doesn't sound like a reason I would agree with but taken on a face value and in the context of his history on this issue it just sounds like a careful politician. There is an open letter from '70s where he is explicitly calling for gay rights but after that he seems to have been more sensitive to political winds. In the context of a purity test you can take this however you want but I felt this point needed a bit of clarification.
If my opinion on the issue has any weight I think the blindness for Sanders's faults is mainly due to people seeing him as a personalization of the idea of challenging the Democratic party establishment. When you get into a position like this where people form an emotional attachment to you it's difficult for them to see your faults. With there being actual unfair and dishonest attacks at him and his past it's easy for his supporters to dismiss also honest and factual criticism as part of "mainstream media / Democratic establishment bias". There is a slightly creepy personal attachment people often form to the politicians they support if they are seen as a representative of an idea. This was true also with Hillary and I've observed it in Finnish politics, too, with candidates like Pekka Haavisto.
Let's just hope the next statement like that doesn't have the phrase "any semblance of democracy" in place of "abortion." I'm bloody worried about the direction the US is taking under Trump.
Well Russia has "elections" too I guess.Let's just hope the next statement like that doesn't have the phrase "any semblance of democracy" in place of "abortion." I'm bloody worried about the direction the US is taking under Trump.
You think the US has any semblance of democracy left? Buckley, Bellotti and Shelby County between them effectively dismantled real democracy in the US.
Well Russia has "elections" too I guess.Let's just hope the next statement like that doesn't have the phrase "any semblance of democracy" in place of "abortion." I'm bloody worried about the direction the US is taking under Trump.
You think the US has any semblance of democracy left? Buckley, Bellotti and Shelby County between them effectively dismantled real democracy in the US.
Correction: the pardoned people were poachers who started a destructive wildfire to get rid of the evidence of their crime. They're not from the Bundy mob but did serve as the inspiration for Bundy and his weird revolt.
The apology tour the next president is going to have to make is going to be considerable.
The apology tour the next president is going to have to make is going to be considerable.
And the shit said person will get from the GOP will be MASSIVE.
Guys I'm starting to think I'm just paranoid and that Trump didn't collude with Russia.
Ironbite-but everyone else who helped got him elected did.
Rand Paul says he's worried about Kavanaugh (https://reason.com/blog/2018/07/16/concerned-rand-paul-isnt-sure-how-hell-v). And it looks like he's not alone among Republican senators.
Guys I'm starting to think I'm just paranoid and that Trump didn't collude with Russia.
Ironbite-but everyone else who helped got him elected did.
As for Russia attempting to hack US voting systems, this is why you need hand-marked paper ballots. (Make them machine-read for faster initial counting, but you need to retain the originals for manual recounts in any races that are even slightly close. Also, make sure any machines used in the tabulation are never connected to the Internet.)
Great, now our Twitter and chief is instigating shit with Iran now? Can't there be any fucking good news in politics these days?
I expect my state to fight this as much as possible, and subvert it every step.
It would really please me to hear tell of countries escalating their tariffs that target the red states.
"This list was clearly drawn strategically to exert maximum pain politically for the president," said Maryscott Greenwood of the Canadian American Business Council.
"The idea is, you look at a map of the congressional districts of the United States, you look at which members of Congress are in leadership positions and then you look at the big industries in those districts and then you draw up your list accordingly," she said. "And this list was clearly drawn up with this in mind."
Trump, a hypocrite? Say it ain't so! /s
I'm really surprised they haven't jettisoned him by now after they got the Tax Scam. You get everything else with President Pence minus the ongoing Russian thing.
Ironbite-makes me wonder how many other politicians Putin owns and what he's got on the GOP as a whole.
The GOP is scared of Trump. He has an 85 percent approval rating in his party. They have to suck his dick to get elected.
You know, I actually have 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% sympathy for Trump, because all his troubles are because he decided to run for President--if he'd never done that, he probably could have skated along with his criminal activities for the rest of his life, since the US "justice" system lets rich people get away with most anything.
I think it was more, "We'll lose all credibility on the international stage."
Too late. (Granted this happened--or should have happened--when Obama ordered Gaddafi killed despite Bush promising to leave Gaddafi alone in exchange for his giving up his WMDs.)
The US cannot be trusted to keep its word. It can barely be trusted to stand by its properly-ratified international treaties.
EDIT: As for the mystery op-ed piece, I've heard some speculation that it's Pence, because he's one of the few (maybe the only) administration officials to use the term "lodestar".
I don't blame Obama for that. You can very readily order someone dead when they are killing their own people. Your word should never be that ironclad. As much as people love these idiotic words like honor and loyalty (to one's word or some such), I would rather a Democratic President not be totally beholden to them.It was nothing to do with the massacres. The US government could not give less of a shit about foreign governments killing and oppressing their own people, so long as it doesn't negatively effect their own interests. The oil exports to Europe were being disrupted by the civil war, that's why NATO got involved. All of the pearl clutching about civilian massacres were just a way to sell it to the public, nothing more than that.
Keeping to your word is meaningless in the face of immediate imperatives such as preventing Gaddafi from going on with his massacres.
I think it was more, "We'll lose all credibility on the international stage."
Too late. (Granted this happened--or should have happened--when Obama ordered Gaddafi killed despite Bush promising to leave Gaddafi alone in exchange for his giving up his WMDs.)
The US cannot be trusted to keep its word. It can barely be trusted to stand by its properly-ratified international treaties.
EDIT: As for the mystery op-ed piece, I've heard some speculation that it's Pence, because he's one of the few (maybe the only) administration officials to use the term "lodestar".
I don't blame Obama for that. You can very readily order someone dead when they are killing their own people. Your word should never be that ironclad. As much as people love these idiotic words like honor and loyalty (to one's word or some such), I would rather a Democratic President not be totally beholden to them.
Keeping to your word is meaningless in the face of immediate imperatives such as preventing Gaddafi from going on with his massacres.
.#ChristineBlaseyFord academic problems came from her PROMISCUITY!
Dang girl, stop opening your legs and OPEN A BOOK!
#TeamKJ
It wasn't challenged, because Leftist women are skanky for the most part.
More will be sued and made to pay for this.
I disagree. Feminists are their own worst enemies, and enemy of women.
Also, they want men to NEVER be believed. I'm not succumbing.
TO HELL with the notion that women must be believed no matter what. Lying skanks is what these 3 women are, and we ALL know more
#TeamKJ
.#Democrats latest Great Feminist Hope against #Kavanaugh admits to attending 10 gang-bangs where Kavanaugh "waited his turn"
Something tells me #Swetnick wasn't at these parties for the DRINKS
#DraggingBottomOfBarrel
#TeamKJ
And then they'll confirm Kavanaugh to the Supreme court despite any findings and well be stuck with him for the next forty years with roe v wade over turned.
And then they'll confirm Kavanaugh to the Supreme court despite any findings and well be stuck with him for the next forty years with roe v wade over turned.
Well, the Democrats' next move, really, is to kill the legislative filibuster and do what FDR didn't: expand the Supreme Court.
And then they'll confirm Kavanaugh to the Supreme court despite any findings and well be stuck with him for the next forty years with roe v wade over turned.
Well, the Democrats' next move, really, is to kill the legislative filibuster and do what FDR didn't: expand the Supreme Court.
Oh, I wish I were in Canada with whatever legal dope you got
And then they'll confirm Kavanaugh to the Supreme court despite any findings and well be stuck with him for the next forty years with roe v wade over turned.
Well, the Democrats' next move, really, is to kill the legislative filibuster and do what FDR didn't: expand the Supreme Court.
Oh, I wish I were in Canada with whatever legal dope you got
I'm not saying they will, and I'm not saying they should.
As for up here... go see the Constitution Act, 1982, s. 41(d). That's one of the provisions that keeps the courts up here from becoming politicized.
You’re cute when you ignore ratfuckery.
I.e. Much like gerrymandering, norms and mores, moreso than rules and procedure, that reign in partisanship. Your system, just as much as ours, is susceptible to partisanship; you’ve just been lucky enough to avoid it.
SCOTUS nothing. Congress should have term and age limits.
SCOTUS nothing. Congress should have term and age limits.
A nice idea. But, as much as Congress is flawed, I like the idea of experienced and knowledgeable politicians more so than I like the idea of "new blood." Additionally, if people really cared about Congressional term limits, they could just vote in primaries, field a challenger, vote for the opposing candidate(s), or not vote at all.*
*None of which will happen because are a democracy: we are free to be as lazy and stupid as we want to be.
SCOTUS nothing. Congress should have term and age limits.
A nice idea. But, as much as Congress is flawed, I like the idea of experienced and knowledgeable politicians more so than I like the idea of "new blood." Additionally, if people really cared about Congressional term limits, they could just vote in primaries, field a challenger, vote for the opposing candidate(s), or not vote at all.*
*None of which will happen because are a democracy: we are free to be as lazy and stupid as we want to be.
Whereas SCOTUS appointments are for life and shouldn't really be capable of impeachment except for the most egregious offences to avoid political interference. That necessary independence is a pretty good basis for only appointing those people who are beyond reproach and not actively partisan.
SCOTUS nothing. Congress should have term and age limits.
A nice idea. But, as much as Congress is flawed, I like the idea of experienced and knowledgeable politicians more so than I like the idea of "new blood." Additionally, if people really cared about Congressional term limits, they could just vote in primaries, field a challenger, vote for the opposing candidate(s), or not vote at all.*
*None of which will happen because are a democracy: we are free to be as lazy and stupid as we want to be.
Whereas SCOTUS appointments are for life and shouldn't really be capable of impeachment except for the most egregious offences to avoid political interference. That necessary independence is a pretty good basis for only appointing those people who are beyond reproach and not actively partisan.
A nice idea, in theory.
It's very hard to feel hopeful and optimistic during this current state of things. Trump keeps getting his agenda through. Seeing his smug face on tv makes me so fucking angry. I can't even listen to what he has to say. Watching the polls everyday for the upcoming election churns my stomach in knots. It feels like a nightmare I can't wake up from. I just need some kind of good news.
And the Supreme Court's officially stacked. Fuck Donald Trump and the Republican fascists behind him.
And the Supreme Court's officially stacked. Fuck Donald Trump and the Republican fascists behind him.
I've said it once, I'll say it again (and not to you, of course): elections have consequences and abortion rights were nice while they lasted.
Have shares in coat hanger companies risen yet?
I've heard about a few possible scenarios:
1. Haley is going to get a job within the administration in the new year, to show that the Republicans aren't anti-woman or anti-minority (she's the daughter of Indian immigrants). Quite possibly for 2020 they'll kick Pence to the curb and run a Trump-Haley ticket.
2. She's setting up for a run of her own, probably challenging Trump in the 2020 primaries. She probably can't win, though--the Republicans have too many winner-take-all contests.
3. She's setting up for an independent run, trying to bleed just enough of the Republican vote (particularly in the South) to keep Trump out. Kasich might do the same thing with the Rust Belt.
So Niki Haley resigned from her position today stating "America is respected now." I didn't realize talking down to your allies treating them like shit, dropping out of deals the country has made, losing trust and palling around with Dictators equals respect.
I've heard about a few possible scenarios:
1. Haley is going to get a job within the administration in the new year, to show that the Republicans aren't anti-woman or anti-minority (she's the daughter of Indian immigrants). Quite possibly for 2020 they'll kick Pence to the curb and run a Trump-Haley ticket.
2. She's setting up for a run of her own, probably challenging Trump in the 2020 primaries. She probably can't win, though--the Republicans have too many winner-take-all contests.
3. She's setting up for an independent run, trying to bleed just enough of the Republican vote (particularly in the South) to keep Trump out. Kasich might do the same thing with the Rust Belt.
Oh I'm sure she'll run for President in 2024. No one is going to challenge Trump in 2020. He may be one of the most hated presidents in recent times but he is the most loved president by the Republican party.
Anyone who challenges him that's an elected official is calling for their throats to be cut.
Ironbite-probably see a few other "billionaires" try to unseat him.
So Niki Haley resigned from her position today stating "America is respected now." I didn't realize talking down to your allies treating them like shit, dropping out of deals the country has made, losing trust and palling around with Dictators equals respect.
Do you think Trump might have sacked her because she won't feed the mushroom.
So Niki Haley resigned from her position today stating "America is respected now." I didn't realize talking down to your allies treating them like shit, dropping out of deals the country has made, losing trust and palling around with Dictators equals respect.
Do you think Trump might have sacked her because she won't feed the mushroom.
He didn't call her "fat" or "low-IQ," so I do not believe so.
I've heard about a few possible scenarios:
1. Haley is going to get a job within the administration in the new year, to show that the Republicans aren't anti-woman or anti-minority (she's the daughter of Indian immigrants). Quite possibly for 2020 they'll kick Pence to the curb and run a Trump-Haley ticket.
2. She's setting up for a run of her own, probably challenging Trump in the 2020 primaries. She probably can't win, though--the Republicans have too many winner-take-all contests.
3. She's setting up for an independent run, trying to bleed just enough of the Republican vote (particularly in the South) to keep Trump out. Kasich might do the same thing with the Rust Belt.
Oh I'm sure she'll run for President in 2024. No one is going to challenge Trump in 2020. He may be one of the most hated presidents in recent times but he is the most loved president by the Republican party.Anyone who challenges him that's an elected official is calling for their throats to be cut.
Ironbite-probably see a few other "billionaires" try to unseat him.
Anyone trying to challenge Trump from within the Republican Party will not succeed.
What might happen is that Haley and/or Kasich make runs as independent candidates, focusing on their particular regions where they can draw off votes (from anti-Trump Republicans who can't bring themselves to vote for the Democratic candidate but can sleep at night voting third-party for a Republican they would be fine having as President--never mind that there are basically no policy differences between them), and effectively ensure that the Democratic candidate wins states like Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, and probably also Ohio, North Carolina, and Florida--who knows, maybe even Texas.
Both would, at that point, have been out of any elected positions for a good time at that point.
United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley's abrupt resignation on Tuesday came one day after an ethics watchdog group requested the State Department's inspector general investigate her acceptance of seven free flights aboard private jets from a trio of South Carolina businessmen.
Haley, the former governor of South Carolina, listed the flights on her 2017 financial disclosure and asserted that each qualified for an exception based on her relationships with the businessmen.
But the group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, said in its complaint that Haley's financial disclosure did not provide enough information to make the assertion that the flights between New York, Washington, DC, and three South Carolina cities qualified for the exemption.
Those flights were most likely worth tens of thousands of dollars, CREW suggested.
“By accepting gifts of luxury private flights, Ambassador Haley seems to be falling in line with other Trump administration officials who are reaping personal benefits from their public positions,” Noah Bookbinder, executive director of the group, said in a statement. “Our ethics laws are clearly written to prevent even the appearance of corruption and improper influence.”
At a “minimum,” Bookbinder said, Haley should have been sensitive to the appearance of accepting pricey gifts from businessmen — especially at a time when other Trump officials have been caught in scandals for lavish travel.
I've heard about a few possible scenarios:
1. Haley is going to get a job within the administration in the new year, to show that the Republicans aren't anti-woman or anti-minority (she's the daughter of Indian immigrants). Quite possibly for 2020 they'll kick Pence to the curb and run a Trump-Haley ticket.
2. She's setting up for a run of her own, probably challenging Trump in the 2020 primaries. She probably can't win, though--the Republicans have too many winner-take-all contests.
3. She's setting up for an independent run, trying to bleed just enough of the Republican vote (particularly in the South) to keep Trump out. Kasich might do the same thing with the Rust Belt.
Oh I'm sure she'll run for President in 2024. No one is going to challenge Trump in 2020. He may be one of the most hated presidents in recent times but he is the most loved president by the Republican party.Anyone who challenges him that's an elected official is calling for their throats to be cut.
Ironbite-probably see a few other "billionaires" try to unseat him.
Anyone trying to challenge Trump from within the Republican Party will not succeed.
What might happen is that Haley and/or Kasich make runs as independent candidates, focusing on their particular regions where they can draw off votes (from anti-Trump Republicans who can't bring themselves to vote for the Democratic candidate but can sleep at night voting third-party for a Republican they would be fine having as President--never mind that there are basically no policy differences between them), and effectively ensure that the Democratic candidate wins states like Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, and probably also Ohio, North Carolina, and Florida--who knows, maybe even Texas.
Both would, at that point, have been out of any elected positions for a good time at that point.
I think you're being a little too hopeful. I don't think they have any intentions of running as independents or leaving the Republican party. Republicans won't vote for them over Trump and Democrats won't vote for them either so there would be no point.
Kasich is always gearing up for a Presidential run. Of the elected officials, he's bout the only one who would try and Primary Trump. Haley, not so much.
Ironbite-would be interesting to see though.
I find it hard to believe that Mueller doesn't have any contingency plans. There's no way in hell that he'd be blind sided by an attempt to remove him.I've seen mentioned that the contingency is that the States will start similar investigations for some of the crimes that came up in the investigation because the president would not be able to stop those investigations even if the crimes they can charge his campaign with are not as severe.
I think Mueller had already been farming out the prosecutions to other offices that aren't as easy for Trump to shut down. Still an utter disaster for rule of law if it happens, of course.
That's the thing that kills me. If Trump fires Mueller, any committee in the House can subpoena him and there ain't a damn thing Trump can do. He's literally banking on spinelessness and Maxine Waters and Adam Schiff have not only spines, they have iron in said spines.
Ironbite-he doesn't think long term at all.
It is difficult, if not impossible, to unring the bell of populism once it has taken hold.
This week's U.S. midterm election results, in which Democrats regained control of the House but were dealt a stiff setback in the Senate, proved less a blue wave than a light misting; hardly the wholesale repudiation of President Donald Trump that some had hoped for. Despite a respectable House win, it appears voters were not clamouring for a return to "business as usual" governance.
Again, extreme gerrymandering, a strong economy and more democratic senate seats in red states up for grabs made it difficult for Dems to win the Senate. The fact that they took the house despite all of that is amazing, and they gained five governors.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/populist-momentum-1.4895803QuoteIt is difficult, if not impossible, to unring the bell of populism once it has taken hold.
This week's U.S. midterm election results, in which Democrats regained control of the House but were dealt a stiff setback in the Senate, proved less a blue wave than a light misting; hardly the wholesale repudiation of President Donald Trump that some had hoped for. Despite a respectable House win, it appears voters were not clamouring for a return to "business as usual" governance.
Something tells me even if the Democrats take the Senate and even more of the House, if they didn't do so with a platform made by Bernie or the Democratic Socialists or the "real left" instead of the "Center Right" the Democrats allegedly are, you'd still complain.Ideally, yes. Not accepting corrupt politicians is very much a good thing. After all, the big ol' D next to their name is rather meaningless if they still take lobbyist money in exchange for doing their bidding. The end result won't be much different than if the Republicans are in charge. You need folks who refuse corporate money to win, because they're the only ones who'll actually do all of those lovely reforms like universal healthcare and higher education, living wage and most ideally, campaign reform instead of just making empty promises.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/populist-momentum-1.4895803QuoteIt is difficult, if not impossible, to unring the bell of populism once it has taken hold.
This week's U.S. midterm election results, in which Democrats regained control of the House but were dealt a stiff setback in the Senate, proved less a blue wave than a light misting; hardly the wholesale repudiation of President Donald Trump that some had hoped for. Despite a respectable House win, it appears voters were not clamouring for a return to "business as usual" governance.
Something tells me even if the Democrats take the Senate and even more of the House, if they didn't do so with a platform made by Bernie or the Democratic Socialists or the "real left" instead of the "Center Right" the Democrats allegedly are, you'd still complain.
Just face it - you are deeply associated with Messianic Politics.
You want a populist messiah to "fix" all the problems you see in America's Democracy. Those who seek a Messiah will never receive one.
Nah. Seems he's got a bone to pick with Trump and honestly, he might actually be the guy to unseat the Orange Piss Pot.\
Ironbite-but we'll see what the rest of the field looks like.
He may be a good democrat for West Virginia but nationally he would be terrible for a few reasons:
1. The media would paint him as Trump lite. Democrats won't get excited to vote for someone that's just like Trump. It will be like 2004 all over again.
2. He's anti abortion. So you've already alienated women voters especially now that women are turning out to vote in record numbers for Democrats, and want someone to stand for them.
3. He's pro gun. There's nothing wrong with being pro gun per say. But a lot of young voters are getting sick of the NRA and their bull shit.
4. He voted for Trump and Mccain and George W Bush.
Democrats don't need a populist candidate. They need someone that inspires and excites them. Not someone that creates fear and uncertainty. Democrats fall in love Republicans fall in line. If you're going to put a right of center Democrat on your ticket than wave goodbye to most of your voters.
Yes, there is a lot of stuff we corporate darklords are bad with, but to say we're functionally no different from the party that's okay with White Nationalists, who has had a "political pedophile" run under their ticket, has had multiple outright Nazis run for office under their ticket, and who has stolen elections, disenfranchised millions, and would openly pine for a Gilead-like dystopia...
...that comes off as incredibly, incredibly intellectually dishonest.
Giving Amazon a Helipad for their executives =/= "I'm Okay With Nazis".
I have to say, I believe the exact opposite is the problem. The fact that voters will ultimately accept what's given to them is why the vast majority of Dems are Republican lite. By holding your guys to an actual standard that's a little higher than merely having a D next to their name, and making it clear to them that taking that sweet, sweet lobbyist money and being a Republican in practice is political suicide is how you actually get proper left wing (or in your guy's case, centrist) candidates in office. Yes, picking your battles is important, but there is such a thing as going too far in the opposite direction, and accepting the same as the other side, but with less racist and/or Bible thumping rhetoric is most definitely that.
That's why not necessarily Republicans, but Elitists in general of all party affiliations, have such a stranglehold on the US and most of the rest of the democratic world.
I mean, Trump's bad at the long game, so of course his cultists are, as well.
My god it's like he thinks these judges are supposed to be loyal to him, not the law.
Ironbite-he's really really stupid.
My god it's like he thinks these judges are supposed to be loyal to him, not the law.
Ironbite-he's really really stupid.
There's debate whether Trump could pardon Manafort. Depends on what charges he gets apparently. And even if he does accept the pardon it just means that he can't refuse to answer question about the crime that he now admitted doing.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46390368
Trump is not having a good week.
Oh bless Collins black heart. She's trying to save her seat.
Ironbite-HOW ADORABLE!
Oh bless Collins black heart. She's trying to save her seat.
Ironbite-HOW ADORABLE!
That Kavanaugh speech basically sealed her fate in 2020. Especially with how the Maine election played out.
Ironbite-might as well resign now so the GOP can try and wedge someone else in there.
First of all, why wouldn't we get elections?
But I too think it'll be interesting in another 6 months when candidates start announcing. I'm curious to see who shows up for the Dems. I don't see much leadership or direction from that side, other than block Trump.
Trump seriously thinks he can get away with anything now that he's president. It's why he gets so angry when the courts say he can't. It's frustrating to him because he literally does not know what the job entails and that he's not in power forever. And the GOP never put the checks needed on him that they should've from the very beginning.
Ironbite-so, like any good dictator, he'll do anything he can to hold on to power and if he thinks he'll lose the election, he will try and cancel them.
Meanwhile, Dem governor of New York Andrew Cuomo is promising Amazon a taxpayer funded helipad for their executives. https://splinternews.com/will-new-york-resist-the-urge-to-give-amazon-literally-1830404202 (https://splinternews.com/will-new-york-resist-the-urge-to-give-amazon-literally-1830404202). Niam and Ironbite, take note. This is why the difference between corporatist Democrats and populist Democrats is really fucking important. The former, despite the D in front of their names, are functionally no different to the Republicans.
Meanwhile, Dem governor of New York Andrew Cuomo is promising Amazon a taxpayer funded helipad for their executives. https://splinternews.com/will-new-york-resist-the-urge-to-give-amazon-literally-1830404202 (https://splinternews.com/will-new-york-resist-the-urge-to-give-amazon-literally-1830404202). Niam and Ironbite, take note. This is why the difference between corporatist Democrats and populist Democrats is really fucking important. The former, despite the D in front of their names, are functionally no different to the Republicans.
Again, when the decision is between a corporate democrat or Trump, it really isn't a decision.
There are a lot of moving pieces when it comes to rating people. Corporate tax breaks are fucking stupid, but that is why we have a primary system.
The difference between everything else and the last is that none of those were direct attacks on democracy.
As I've seen noted, Collins (like Manchin) has shown a remarkable ability to defy gravity. The last time she faced an unfavourable environment, after all, was 2008, where Obama won Maine by more than 17 points over McCain, but Collins won by almost 23 points--a 40-point swing. (Under more favourable conditions in 2014, she won by 37, while Obama won by a little over 15 points two years prior.)
As I've seen noted, Collins (like Manchin) has shown a remarkable ability to defy gravity. The last time she faced an unfavourable environment, after all, was 2008, where Obama won Maine by more than 17 points over McCain, but Collins won by almost 23 points--a 40-point swing. (Under more favourable conditions in 2014, she won by 37, while Obama won by a little over 15 points two years prior.)
Susan Collins has survived for as long as she has because she managed to successfully fool the people in Maine into thinking she wasn't a partisan Republican hack. But over the last two years, she's thrown away any pretence she had of being bipartisan or reasonable, and has basically been giving McConnell everything he asks for... While still hoping that her SAYING she's bipartisan will keep her in the good graces of the people in Maine. But it sounds like she's not fooling anybody anymore. That speech she delivered before voting for Kavanaugh was the final nail in that coffin.
How is the 21st debatable? If you're talking about states that ban alcohol, the 21st Amendment says bupkis about states being allowed to ban alcohol or not--in fact, it basically says that they can.
Also, there's 27 Amendments, so what are the other two you're referring to?
After the endless chance [sic] of lock her up! How ironic will it be if Trump is the one that actually sits behind bars? Surely it would be proof that there is a God. It would also be proof that he has a sense of humor.
Ironbite-and his hand picked SCOTUS Bro just joined the majority in not taking up a case that could've spelt dire news for abortion rights.
Ironbite-and his hand picked SCOTUS Bro just joined the majority in not taking up a case that could've spelt dire news for abortion rights.
Oh? A two-thirds majority, then; only four justices need to agree that the Court should take a case for them to consider it. (This is to prevent a majority on the Court from determining its docket.)
Ironbite-and his hand picked SCOTUS Bro just joined the majority in not taking up a case that could've spelt dire news for abortion rights.
Oh? A two-thirds majority, then; only four justices need to agree that the Court should take a case for them to consider it. (This is to prevent a majority on the Court from determining its docket.)
The four liberal judges, Roberts and Kavanaugh declined to hear the case. So they only had three agreeing.
So I think I've finally cracked the code when it comes to Trump and how he views this investigation.
He has no clue how a real criminal investigation is actually run or proceeds.
He tweeted today about how there's no "smocking gun" found so therefore there's no collusion and other things. The thing is, "smocking guns" only exist in crime dramas and the such. There often isn't a concrete "ah-hah gotcha!" piece of evidence in real life. But in the Orange Piss Pot's head, there has to be. He doesn't get that all the testimony, all the investigations, and all the shit Mueller's been finding out about is the result of a real investigation. And it's got him scared.
Ironbite-and his hand picked SCOTUS Bro just joined the majority in not taking up a case that could've spelt dire news for abortion rights.
Ironbite-and his hand picked SCOTUS Bro just joined the majority in not taking up a case that could've spelt dire news for abortion rights.
Oh? A two-thirds majority, then; only four justices need to agree that the Court should take a case for them to consider it. (This is to prevent a majority on the Court from determining its docket.)
The four liberal judges, Roberts and Kavanaugh declined to hear the case. So they only had three agreeing.
What might happen is that Kavanaugh just keeps declining to hear said cases, and lets the ever-more-conservative circuit courts uphold restrictive abortion laws in GOP-run states.
Also, fuck you, Harry Reid, you idiot.
Ironbite-and his hand picked SCOTUS Bro just joined the majority in not taking up a case that could've spelt dire news for abortion rights.
Oh? A two-thirds majority, then; only four justices need to agree that the Court should take a case for them to consider it. (This is to prevent a majority on the Court from determining its docket.)
The four liberal judges, Roberts and Kavanaugh declined to hear the case. So they only had three agreeing.
What might happen is that Kavanaugh just keeps declining to hear said cases, and lets the ever-more-conservative circuit courts uphold restrictive abortion laws in GOP-run states.
Also, fuck you, Harry Reid, you idiot.
If you honestly think that McConnell wouldn't have changed the rules the way he did regardless of what Harry Reid had done in the past, you're hopelessly naive and I hope you stay safe in this dangerous world.
What do you think?
And today, Trump lost the shutdown fight until the end of this farce. He gave a sound bite that can and will come back to bite him in the ass.
"I will be proud to shut down the government over the border wall." (https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/11/trump-border-wall-congress-budget-1055433)
Now, before people come here telling me that I'm wrong and it won't do anything, think about what has just happened. We had a 40 seat pick up in the House giving the Democrats a very wide berth to do whatever they want. And the biggest reason that most voters cited in voting against Republicans was Trump. And he's just handed the Democrats a great weapon to use against him.
Ironbite-this man is....amazing.
Fox and Friends went on a lengthy rant about how much of a disgrace it is for Trump to cave about this.
Ironbite-I wonder if someone's feeding Faux Noise lines.
If they kill the filibuster for this, they have nothing left.
Ironbite-and McConnel will not nuke that rule cause it's the only thing he's got to check the Democrats in 2020.
Is the wall really so important for the Republicans that they would sacrifice a long term advantage for it? To me it sounds more like Trump's vanity project that is mostly useful for the party to rile up the base and give smoke curtain to whatever else they want to do. Trump himself would do it in a heartbeat but McConnell has to think more tactically. Sure, there is more than enough racist sentiment to make sure there are less brown people entering the country but the unrealistic nature of Trump's wall plan must get through to all but the most thick headed party members.
I meant the politicians, not the base. They can just not kill the filibuster and still keep their base enraged about how the Dems hate America and stand in the way of building the big and beautiful wall every true American wants. If you can get Trump to direct his Twitter tantrums more towards the Democrats - which shouldn't be too difficult since he is easy to manipulate - the base will follow.Is the wall really so important for the Republicans that they would sacrifice a long term advantage for it? To me it sounds more like Trump's vanity project that is mostly useful for the party to rile up the base and give smoke curtain to whatever else they want to do. Trump himself would do it in a heartbeat but McConnell has to think more tactically. Sure, there is more than enough racist sentiment to make sure there are less brown people entering the country but the unrealistic nature of Trump's wall plan must get through to all but the most thick headed party members.
Sure... but consider what percentage those "thick headed party members" make up of the people who vote in Republican Congressional primaries. You'll notice that the Republican Representatives and Senators most critical of Trump either didn't run again (Corker, Flake) or got knocked out in a primary (Sanford)--never mind that they still voted with him plenty often.
Is the wall really so important for the Republicans that they would sacrifice a long term advantage for it? To me it sounds more like Trump's vanity project that is mostly useful for the party to rile up the base and give smoke curtain to whatever else they want to do. Trump himself would do it in a heartbeat but McConnell has to think more tactically. Sure, there is more than enough racist sentiment to make sure there are less brown people entering the country but the unrealistic nature of Trump's wall plan must get through to all but the most thick headed party members.
Is the wall really so important for the Republicans that they would sacrifice a long term advantage for it? To me it sounds more like Trump's vanity project that is mostly useful for the party to rile up the base and give smoke curtain to whatever else they want to do. Trump himself would do it in a heartbeat but McConnell has to think more tactically. Sure, there is more than enough racist sentiment to make sure there are less brown people entering the country but the unrealistic nature of Trump's wall plan must get through to all but the most thick headed party members.
It's really that important to Trump. A subsidiary of his or his children will build it. Well, have Mexicans build it anyways.
So how long do you think Trump is going to keep this temper tantrum government shut down up?
So how long do you think Trump is going to keep this temper tantrum government shut down up?
At least until after New Years, I'd say. Of course, on January 3rd the new Congress takes over, and then there's zero chance Trump gets his wall...
Ironbite-the Orange Piss POt hasn't figured that out.
Pay attention.
Trump's trip to visit troops is cover so he can get to Florida. He needs to get to Mar-a-Lago for NYE.
They sold tickets to a party and promised access to the president.
Wall or no wall people are going to come to America as long as that looks like a more appealing choice than staying wherever they were at first. Those kids died because they weren't treated well when they came up here for whatever ailments they had (Sorry but I'm not an expert on the details, its just super fucked up they died at all)
It's more subpar conditions that they're being kept in. While media and others are not allowed in these facilities, migrants detail conditions of squalor: over-crowding, undernourishment, ignoring illnesses, and vomiting & diarrhea being common place (including said messes being left alone for hours or days). Under these conditions, airborne viruses would spread like wildfire, and indeed one of the children, Felipe Alonzo, died of influenza B.
So Trump pretty much made this address to try to blame the Democrats for a false crisis that he's created. Yup.
So Trump pretty much made this address to try to blame the Democrats for a false crisis that he's created. Yup.
So Trump pretty much made this address to try to blame the Democrats for a false crisis that he's created. Yup.
That he said he would take responsibility for.
So Trump pretty much made this address to try to blame the Democrats for a false crisis that he's created. Yup.
Trump didn't "create" this crisis. According to this report (https://www.usccr.gov/pubs/docs/Statutory_Enforcement_Report2015.pdf) by the US Commission on Civil Rights, shit like this was happening under Obama too. But the fact that Trump's letting this continue reflects very badly on him.
So Trump pretty much made this address to try to blame the Democrats for a false crisis that he's created. Yup.
That he said he would take responsibility for.
I don't know why anybody expects consistency from that overgrown Oompa Loompa at this point.
So Trump pretty much made this address to try to blame the Democrats for a false crisis that he's created. Yup.
Trump didn't "create" this crisis. According to this report (https://www.usccr.gov/pubs/docs/Statutory_Enforcement_Report2015.pdf) by the US Commission on Civil Rights, shit like this was happening under Obama too. But the fact that Trump's letting this continue reflects very badly on him.
Except with his rabid, racist, xenophobic base.
I don't know why anybody expects consistency from that overgrown Oompa Loompa at this point.
I don't.
As for the speech he gave last night over the major networks (who, BTW, wouldn't allow Obama to do the same thing because it would be "too political"):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ovm1J_AxLQ
It is hypocritical for the Democrats to oppose the 5 billion for the wall because it pales in comparison to the big spending that the Democrats support. This shutdown wouldn’t have fucking happened if the Democrats agreed to the House bill that funds the wall. Trump cannot cave in on the issue of wall, because that would be breaking his number 1 campaign promise, and that would cause him to lose support from his baseand not win re-election in 2020. Hopefully he will declare a National Emergency and use his executive power to build the wall.
Luckily a patriotic American has established a GoFundMe on the border wall which has already raised millions of dollars.
It is hypocritical for the Democrats to oppose the 5 billion for the wall because it pales in comparison to the big spending that the Democrats support. This shutdown wouldn’t have fucking happened if the Democrats agreed to the House bill that funds the wall. Trump cannot cave in on the issue of wall, because that would be breaking his number 1 campaign promise, and that would cause him to lose support from his baseand not win re-election in 2020. Hopefully he will declare a National Emergency and use his executive power to build the wall.
Luckily a patriotic American has established a GoFundMe on the border wall which has already raised millions of dollars.
There are more problems with the wall than just the price tag. One of the biggest is the fact that it probably wouldn't work. Illegal immigrants aren't stupid, they can find ways to get past it.
I don't like illegal immigration either, but there are better ways of combating it. Really, it doesn't matter how "cheap" something is if it's a waste of money. Using that five billion to pay illegals to go back would be less of a waste.
I'm not sure if Creeper is sarcastic or not but saying that Trump can't back down on his wall idea is false for numerous reasons.
a) Many of his fans insisted that the wall was metaphorical rather than a real actual wall. This because while they did want to keep the "scary brown people" out they also understood that a wall would not work and would be a stupid idea. Aside from how easy it is to go past "THE WALL" and how most illegal immigrants are actually people who came in legally but overstayed, it wouldn't even protect USA against the terrorists despite this being one of the main talking points for it. There have been no terrorists ever caught on the borders of USA, all the ones that came in from abroad came on a plane and many were caught on airports.
b) Having established that the wall would not work and is a stupid idea, doing something like that purely out of pig-headed stubborness is stupid. Sensible adults will readjust their plans after they see that their original plan is flawed.
c) Trump doesn't even like being a president. He hates the responsibility and how the media spotlight is on him and how he can't just do things his way because he has to actually do politics.
d) It's likely that he's going to be in jail or pardoned by Pence before the next elections.
There is literally 0 downsides to not making a massive and unnecessary wall. He won't lose a single supporter for it. They don't want a wall, they either want political decisions that help the rich and undo anything that Obama did or simply want laws and political decisions that keep away non-whites from USA. None of that actually requires a wall. I'd even bet that building a wall would bring in loads of more people from Mexico for the construction project and as usual some would stay in the country.
Trump's supporters care more about reducing illegal immigration than they care about building a wall. If he managed to do it without a wall, I don't think they'd care.
And the investigation is still ongoing, so don't be too confident in that.
1. I believe there actually have been terrorists caught who entered the US by crossing a land border... the northern one. (Maybe Scott Walker was right about where the wall should go? PS I'm Canadian.)
2. Many, if not most, undocumented immigrants in the US are people who entered the country legally on a tourist visa and then overstayed it.
3. If you want to deal with the caravans coming from Latin America, you have to understand why they're coming: because they're fleeing gang violence in their own countries. What fuels that violence? Drugs, because of the US's insane "War on Drugs". End that, and you sharply curtail the power of those gangs, which in turn reduces violence, which in turn reduces the number of people fleeing north.
4. At least a plurality of Americans don't want a wall and are blaming Trump for the shutdown, not Congressional Democrats.
5. Any physical barrier across the US-Mexico border would necessarily have holes, because otherwise it'd be destroyed by water. And the costs of maintaining such a barrier would be astronomical.
6. As for Democrats being "big spenders", at least a lot of their proposals are for things that would actually help the public at large--and would save money. When Republicans spend big, it's for things that don't, like illegal invasions.
1. I believe there actually have been terrorists caught who entered the US by crossing a land border... the northern one. (Maybe Scott Walker was right about where the wall should go? PS I'm Canadian.)
2. Many, if not most, undocumented immigrants in the US are people who entered the country legally on a tourist visa and then overstayed it.
3. If you want to deal with the caravans coming from Latin America, you have to understand why they're coming: because they're fleeing gang violence in their own countries. What fuels that violence? Drugs, because of the US's insane "War on Drugs". End that, and you sharply curtail the power of those gangs, which in turn reduces violence, which in turn reduces the number of people fleeing north.
4. At least a plurality of Americans don't want a wall and are blaming Trump for the shutdown, not Congressional Democrats.
5. Any physical barrier across the US-Mexico border would necessarily have holes, because otherwise it'd be destroyed by water. And the costs of maintaining such a barrier would be astronomical.
6. As for Democrats being "big spenders", at least a lot of their proposals are for things that would actually help the public at large--and would save money. When Republicans spend big, it's for things that don't, like illegal invasions.
This shutdown wouldn’t have fucking happened if the Democrats agreed to the House bill that funds the wall.
It will be impossible to climb over the tall wall.
b) This argument can be used against Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi because they are being to stubborn to agree to any amount of wall funding or a deal of wall funding in exchange for DACA amnesty.
6. You mean like funding Planned Parenthood’s infantacides, and funding welfare instead of encouraging hard work. And it was the corrupt establishment NeoCon Republicans that spent money on unnecessary wars. Trump is a great populist Republican who is ending US foreign military interventions, such as withdrawing troops from Syria, and the Democrats showed themselves to be hypocrites when they criticized him for it because they used to be against involvement in foreign wars.
Me, Shawn, and Jacob
There has never BEEN a House bill that funds one cent for the fucking wall. Maybe you should ask your hero and the party he's supposed to be head of why they didn't bother with the absolutely necessary wall while they had complete control of the government?The house did pass a spending bill with wall funding this December. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/12/20/house-passes-spending-bill-with-wall-funding/amp/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dm2lBzm2AEWell using logic, if there is a tall steel barrier, it would be impossible to climb it, and even if illegal immigrants got an extremely tall ladder that goes over it, they wouldn’t be able to get down on the other side because it is too high up.
This was in fact the deal offered in 2018, which was rejected. Buy who? Trump, of course.That was because the Supreme Court was going to make a ruling on DACA so it couldn’t quite be used as leverage.
the "Planned Parenthood murders infants and sells body parts" liefest.They admit to performing abortions and using accepting donations of fetal tissue. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2015/07/15/health/planned-parenthood-undercover-video/index.html
They're still against involvement in foreign wars. They're just smart enough to realize that walking out of a conflict YOU started halfway through doesn't help anybody. It allows ISIS to recover. It allows Assad to regain control with the assistance of the Russians, so he can get back to his campaign of murdering anyone in Syria who isn't 100% behind him. It allows Turkey to murder the Kurdish rebels the US was trying to help, who BTW have been betrayed by the US multiple times in the past - always with a Republican President calling the shots. It allows Russia and Iran to consolidate their power in the Middle East. And it shows that when it comes to the US, they can't be trusted beyond the term of the current President, because no one can say if the next one will simply ignore or walk back previous agreements.Our only reason for being in Syria was to defeat ISIS and since it is almost defeated, other countries such as Iraq can finish the job. It is not in US interests to be involved in the other wars in Syria. Our foreign policy should put America First.
Well using logic, if there is a tall steel barrier, it would be impossible to climb it, and even if illegal immigrants got an extremely tall ladder that goes over it, they wouldn’t be able to get down on the other side because it is too high up.
It can be a giant electric fence.Well using logic, if there is a tall steel barrier, it would be impossible to climb it, and even if illegal immigrants got an extremely tall ladder that goes over it, they wouldn’t be able to get down on the other side because it is too high up.
Unless they progressed past the Stone Age and created the miraculous twin inventions of either a rope or a second ladder.
Or, ya know, they could go full Dwarf and diggy diggy hole. Remind me, what's it mean to "undermine" something? A wall is a Medieval solution to a modern problem. One easily circumvented by even more ancient technology.
Me, Shawn, and Jacob
Hey Sigma can we ban this guy now?
Me, Shawn, and Jacob
Hey Sigma can we ban this guy now?
Yeah, he's gone.
Bet he's got a 3rd account hidden somewhere.
Oh, right, I forgot about the Republican last minute "We're going to force this fucking thing in your face, and you can't do anything about it!" adjusted spending bill. That had multiple bribes in the form of "disaster relief funding" in a desperate attempt to get REPUBLICANS to fucking vote for it... Because they couldn't even rely on THEM to vote for this disaster.There has never BEEN a House bill that funds one cent for the fucking wall. Maybe you should ask your hero and the party he's supposed to be head of why they didn't bother with the absolutely necessary wall while they had complete control of the government?The house did pass a spending bill with wall funding this December. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/12/20/house-passes-spending-bill-with-wall-funding/amp/
The Senate could have easily voted on it if it reached 60 votes, and the Democrats such as Chuck Schumer got in the way by preventing the 60 votes from passing. That led to the shutdown.
Quotethe "Planned Parenthood murders infants and sells body parts" liefest.They admit to performing abortions and using accepting donations of fetal tissue. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2015/07/15/health/planned-parenthood-undercover-video/index.html
Republicans made their claims following the release of a secretly recorded video showing Deborah Nucatola, the senior director of medical services at Planned Parenthood, discussing the procurement of fetal tissues when conducting abortions. The edited video, released July 14 by an anti-abortion group called the Center for Medical Progress, leaves the impression that Nucatola is talking about Planned Parenthood affiliates making money from fetal tissue. But the edited video ignores other things Nucatola said that contradict that idea.
At one point in the unedited video (which was also released by the group), Nucatola says: “Affiliates are not looking to make money by doing this. They’re looking to serve their patients and just make it not impact their bottom line.”
Nucatola also says, “No one’s going to see this as a money making thing.” And at another point, she says, “Our goal, like I said, is to give patients the option without impacting our bottom line. The messaging is this should not be seen as a new revenue stream, because that’s not what it is.”
The footage was recorded secretly during a lunch meeting on July 25, 2014, between Nucatola and two people posing as employees of a company looking to procure fetal tissue for research purposes.
A grand jury here that was investigating accusations of misconduct against Planned Parenthood has instead indicted two abortion opponents who made undercover videos of the organization.
Prosecutors in Harris County said one of the leaders of the Center for Medical Progress — an anti-abortion group that made secretly recorded videos purporting to show Planned Parenthood officials trying to illegally profit from the sale of fetal tissue — had been indicted on a charge of tampering with a governmental record, a felony, and on a misdemeanor charge related to purchasing human organs.
That leader, David R. Daleiden, 27, the director of the center, had posed as a biotechnology representative to infiltrate Planned Parenthood affiliates and surreptitiously record his efforts to procure tissue for research. Another center employee, Sandra S. Merritt, 62, was indicted on a felony charge of tampering with a governmental record.
The record-tampering charges accused Mr. Daleiden and Ms. Merritt of making and presenting fake California driver’s licenses, with the intent to defraud, for their April meeting at Planned Parenthood in Houston.
QuoteThey're still against involvement in foreign wars. They're just smart enough to realize that walking out of a conflict YOU started halfway through doesn't help anybody. It allows ISIS to recover. It allows Assad to regain control with the assistance of the Russians, so he can get back to his campaign of murdering anyone in Syria who isn't 100% behind him. It allows Turkey to murder the Kurdish rebels the US was trying to help, who BTW have been betrayed by the US multiple times in the past - always with a Republican President calling the shots. It allows Russia and Iran to consolidate their power in the Middle East. And it shows that when it comes to the US, they can't be trusted beyond the term of the current President, because no one can say if the next one will simply ignore or walk back previous agreements.Our only reason for being in Syria was to defeat ISIS and since it is almost defeated, other countries such as Iraq can finish the job. It is not in US interests to be involved in the other wars in Syria. Our foreign policy should put America First.
While Trump is an absolute dickhead, you have to at least give him credit for putting that utter cockmonkey Trump in his place.
Depends also on State Law mind. Some states you have to have a special election to replace a Congresscritter. Others it's appointed by that state's Governor. It's how, despite losing her race in Arizona, Martha McSally got in.
McSally's seat was always up for grabs in 2020. Cause that's how terms work
I am starting to get annoyed by this "But his replacement could be equally bad or worse!" meme.
If you find out that someone is unfit for a job or elected position, it should be the duty of the organization or nation to have them replaced. Doesn't matter who the hypothetical replacement is, if they are also unfit they will be replaced then
Well, that's for the voters of IA-4 to decide, should Rep. King resign.
Well, that's for the voters of IA-4 to decide, should Rep. King resign.
Exactly, the voters can elect someone else to the position and that's what democracy in its modern form is supposed to be about. Elect someone to represent yourself but no one is above the law and if the elected person does horrible and/or illegal things they can be removed from the office. I would argue that the ability to remove leaders from office is as important to democracy as is the ability to vote for them in the first place.
Alternatively, we could let North Korea annex Kentucky. I'm sure no one will miss it.That would be some grade A Paradox border gore.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfYCzWCoZck
Fuck dammit MSNBC.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfYCzWCoZck
Fuck dammit MSNBC.
Sorry if I'm missing something, but what does this have to do with Trump?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfYCzWCoZck
Fuck dammit MSNBC.
Sorry if I'm missing something, but what does this have to do with Trump?
The majority of Americans blame him for the shutdown; furthermore, he told Sen. Schumer that he would take responsibility for the shutdown; this is an effect of said shutdown.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfYCzWCoZck
Fuck dammit MSNBC.
Sorry if I'm missing something, but what does this have to do with Trump?
The majority of Americans blame him for the shutdown; furthermore, he told Sen. Schumer that he would take responsibility for the shutdown; this is an effect of said shutdown.
OK, I get it now. Thanks for explaining.
I'll tell you what's going on. She represents ME. She represents everyone I know. She represents the normal people. She cares about OUR interests. In my lifetime I have NEVER felt this represented before in government. It's time for government to work for us, as it was intended. To all the people coming out of the woodwork to spew hate: I love that she represents you too, and that her policies will benefit you as well. I feel sorry for all those that can't or won't see this.
Oh, maybe THAT is why otherwise politically-savvy Republicans keep making kamikaze runs at everything AOC says.
Surely they realize that every attack on her just raises her profile further. They could just let her be a bomb-thrower in the caucus, a one-termer from one of the bluest districts in the country. Instead, the GOP seems determined to make her a serious presidential contender just by focusing too much on her.
When Dell was asked to explain why he thinks that, he said, “Name a country where that’s worked — ever.”
Co-panelist and MIT professor Erik Brynjolfsson jumped in to offer an answer: “the United States.”
I say moderate because this same tax rate is applied in other countries with a much lower threshold, and there were also once rates in the US kicking in at incomes that high, but those were in the range of 91% to 93%.
I say moderate because this same tax rate is applied in other countries with a much lower threshold, and there were also once rates in the US kicking in at incomes that high, but those were in the range of 91% to 93%.
What's more, that was during the 1950s, a time of unprecedented prosperity in America. So it's not like such high tax rates are inherently detrimental to the economy.
I'll tell you what's going on. She represents ME. She represents everyone I know. She represents the normal people. She cares about OUR interests. In my lifetime I have NEVER felt this represented before in government. It's time for government to work for us, as it was intended. To all the people coming out of the woodwork to spew hate: I love that she represents you too, and that her policies will benefit you as well. I feel sorry for all those that can't or won't see this.
So what do you think made him cave? His tanking approval ratings? The Airports shutting down or flights getting delayed? The fact that more Republicans voted for the Democrats proposal in the Senate yesterday than Democrats voting for the Republican proposal?
Madam President. (The Senator from Colorado.) Madam President, I seldom, uh, as you know, um, rise on this floor to contradict somebody on the other side. I've worked very hard over the years to work in a bipartisan way, with the presiding officer, with my Republican colleagues, but these crocodile tears that the Senator from Texas is crying for first respondesr are too hard for me to take.
They're too hard for me to take, because when you sh--when the Senator from Texas shut this government down in 2013, my state was flooded. IT WAS UNDERWATER! PEOPLE WERE KILLED! People's houses were destroyed! Their small businesses were ruined, forever! And because of the Senator from Texas, this government was shut down, for politics. Then he surfed to a second-place finish in the Iowa caucuses, but were of no help - pause- to the first responders, to the teachers, to the students whose schools were closed, when the federal government, that was shut down, because of the junior Senator from Texas.
Oh he isn't going to be impeached, he'll resign first.
Ironbite-speed run of Nixon after all.
Oh he isn't going to be impeached, he'll resign first.
Ironbite-speed run of Nixon after all.
Yeah the only way Trump is leaving office is if he's voted out in 2020, or he does both of his terms until the dems take the Senate and they can properly impeach him.
Trump is going to blow a gasket if he loses reelection.
When you turn on the propaganda wing.....
Now, it's his business, not my business, why he supports a President who wants to erect a medieval barrier on the border of Texas, who wants to use eminent domain to build that wall, who wants to declare an unconstitutional emergency to build that wall, that's the business of the Senator from Texas. I can assure you that in Colorado, if a President said he was gonna use eminent domain to erect a barrier across the state of Colorado, across the Rocky Mountains of Colorado, he was gonna steal the property of our farmers and ranchers to build his medieval wall, there wouldn't be an elected leader from our state that would support that idea.
Which goes to my final point: how ludicrous it is that this government is shut down over a promise the President of the United States couldn't keep, and that America is not interested in having him keep. This idea that he was gonna build a medieval wall across the southern border of Texas, take it from the farmers and ranchers that were there, and have the Mexicans pay for it isn't true! That's why we're here.
The Prime Minister made much play last night with the rights of the individual and the dangers of people being ordered about by officials. I entirely agree that people should have the greatest freedom compatible with the freedom of others. There was a time when employers were free to work little children for sixteen hours a day. I remember when employers were free to employ sweated women workers on finishing trousers at a penny halfpenny a pair. There was a time when people were free to neglect sanitation so that thousands died of preventable diseases. For years every attempt to remedy these crying evils was blocked by the same plea of freedom for the individual. It was in fact freedom for the rich and slavery for the poor. Make no mistake, it has only been through the power of the State, given to it by Parliament, that the general public has been protected against the greed of ruthless profit-makers and property owners. The Conservative Party remains as always a class Party. In twenty-three years in the House of Commons, I cannot recall more than half a dozen from the ranks of the wage earners. It represents today, as in the past, the forces of property and privilege. The Labour Party is, in fact, the one Party which most nearly reflects in its representation and composition all the main streams which flow into the great river of our national life.
I'm just saying that there's no good way to twist "letting people use their right to vote will hurt our party more than any other political group."
I am a Republican voter. I just did our taxes.
The @GOP tax bill cost my family THOUSANDS of dollars this year on our return due to changes, thereby hitting us with the LARGEST tax increase of our lives.
We are middle-class homeowners, and you raised our taxes.
Infuriating!
I have to pay $2000 MORE in taxes this year! What happened?? I voted for you and thought you were fixing this, not making it worse!? I thought I would get money back this year!?
Voted for you. Family of 2 hard working N.Y. cops. Did taxes for years we would pay more and get a refund at the end of the year to help pay debt. First time in 30 years We had to pay more in Federal Taxes. I'm disgusted.
Worse tax return I had in a decade! I admit I voted for @realDonaldTrump but he has officially lost my vote for 2020.
Wait til you file your taxes. Middle class just lost half their return. Lowest refund I have ever had and I am 50yrs old. No wall and now this tax reform sucks too!! Starting to doubt Trump. I voted for him and trusted him too.
Please allow me to quote Corey Lewandowski: Womp womp.
And now a bunch of Trump supporters are crying that they had higher federal tax bills than in previous years because of the eliminations of or caps on deductions used by not-rich people. Meanwhile, rich people and corporations made out like bandits.
Please excuse my schadenfreude.QuoteI am a Republican voter. I just did our taxes.
The @GOP tax bill cost my family THOUSANDS of dollars this year on our return due to changes, thereby hitting us with the LARGEST tax increase of our lives.
We are middle-class homeowners, and you raised our taxes.
Infuriating!QuoteI have to pay $2000 MORE in taxes this year! What happened?? I voted for you and thought you were fixing this, not making it worse!? I thought I would get money back this year!?QuoteVoted for you. Family of 2 hard working N.Y. cops. Did taxes for years we would pay more and get a refund at the end of the year to help pay debt. First time in 30 years We had to pay more in Federal Taxes. I'm disgusted.QuoteWorse tax return I had in a decade! I admit I voted for @realDonaldTrump but he has officially lost my vote for 2020.QuoteWait til you file your taxes. Middle class just lost half their return. Lowest refund I have ever had and I am 50yrs old. No wall and now this tax reform sucks too!! Starting to doubt Trump. I voted for him and trusted him too.
And I expect to see more of this, of course, since these are just the people who are filing early. Wait until mid-April.
Where is this?
Everything he's said since his announcement that he was going to run for president has been things he wants to do but with no substance.
Where is this?
Here (https://www.rawstory.com/2019/02/trusted-trump-voters-seethe-realizing-theyre-getting-screwed-gops-tax-plan/?fbclid=IwAR34aWrSJcbr-1n-sW0CdeP4XjK6kHVhVaUc3MEJ18rcecd2TkP099ZgLGk)
Oh no: https://mobile.twitter.com/westland_will?lang=en
This guy is really upset at Trump. ...For not being racist enough. He complained about the State of the union speech for Trump mentioning minorities but not praising the (88%) white people who voted for him. He is also upset for people still remembering the Holocaust. And a bunch of other Right wing and Nazi stuff.
It's rare to see someone claim that Trump isn't racist enough for them.
As I’ve said time and time again: Mindless obstruction is unacceptable.- https://twitter.com/senatemajldr/status/1093165923761037313 (https://twitter.com/senatemajldr/status/1093165923761037313)
The only way this divided Congress will be able to choose greatness and deliver significant legislation is by focusing on -- as President Trump put it -- “cooperation, compromise, and the common good.”
GOP obstruction is very mindful. It's mindful of the best interests of their campaign donors.
GOP obstruction is very mindful. It's mindful of the best interests of their campaign donors.
To be fair, it's a trick they learned from Democrats. Nobody looks out for citizens who don't have a PAC.
Aren't the courts all controlled by conservative judges now?
Aren't the courts all controlled by conservative judges now?
Republicans will be very vocal about doing that kind of thing if they don't manage to get one of them as the next president. It will one of the first reasons for them to shit on Trump while trying to distance themselves from him.
Does he seriously expect California to just roll over and let him install a border wall on our southern border?
The funny thing is, they can and will go the way of Appalachian Trails if Der Leader deems them not loyal enough.
Ironbite-and that changes on an hourly basis.
...Did the Republicans make even one question to learn about the crimes Trump did? Or did they spend the entire hearing trying to make Cohen look bad?
...Did the Republicans make even one question to learn about the crimes Trump did? Or did they spend the entire hearing trying to make Cohen look bad?
Every single one went up there with the intention of spending all their time screaming that Cohen was a liar, and he was just trying to cash in with a book deal. The general consensus is that they came off like a bunch of Biff Tannens.
...Did the Republicans make even one question to learn about the crimes Trump did? Or did they spend the entire hearing trying to make Cohen look bad?
Every single one went up there with the intention of spending all their time screaming that Cohen was a liar, and he was just trying to cash in with a book deal. The general consensus is that they came off like a bunch of Biff Tannens.
Rich and powerful and able to get away with all their crimes unless someone literally uses a time machine to stop them?
It'll probably make sure people can't protest Richard Spencer while still allowing universities to stop pro-Palestine speakers from appearing.
Yeah they really didn't think this through huh?
Defending free speech is a noble cause... as long as it's done consistently. Somehow, I doubt the Trump administration will meet that little requirement.
Yeah they really didn't think this through huh?
Sure they did. They'll make sure that Ben Shapiro can speak wherever he likes and left-wingers can get blocked to university administrators' hearts' content.
Yeah they really didn't think this through huh?
Sure they did. They'll make sure that Ben Shapiro can speak wherever he likes and left-wingers can get blocked to university administrators' hearts' content.
Yeah, but if he is stating that he wants to protect free speech on campuses than it has to go both ways. Like when the state of Oklahoma said religious imagery should be allowed on public properties so the satanic temple put a statue of Baphomet up, which made them change their tune real quick. Super liberal speakers should use this opportunity to speak on right wing campuses.
Totally, unironically, one hundred percent serious, I support--what he actually just did, after this speech he signed an executive order, like, reaffirming free speech on college campuses or something. Totally support it. Not hedging, no caveats, totally support it. Totally support it.
Now the reality of the situation is this: I think now every single Antifa chapter, every single group of Black Panthers, New Black Panthers, actual communist groups, Democratic Socialists of America, me, all left groups on campuses should invite these characters to speak now, and watch in real time the hilarious flipflopping that occurs right in front of you.
They will immediately change it from, oh my god, did we say free speech, we only meant for fucking, like, Milo Yiannopoulos and Ben Shapiro and Steven Crowder, and when we say we're against political correctness, what we mean by that is we want to be able to say things that are factually untrue and have you not rebut it. That's what they mean.
So, but, OK, if you have a principled belief in free speech, great. Me too, I support the executive order, but now I want Antifa speaking places, Black Panthers, communists, Democratic Socialists, go ahead. Come on. Go do it.
I'm surprised it was that many senators.
The next president of USA can declare a national emergency over gun violence, healthcare and anything else they may desire to do so for. And then use their veto to keep it up.Assuming Congress will let them, which they almost certainly won't, thanks to the vast majority of both parties being thoroughly corrupt.
The next president of USA can declare a national emergency over gun violence, healthcare and anything else they may desire to do so for. And then use their veto to keep it up.
The next president of USA can declare a national emergency over gun violence, healthcare and anything else they may desire to do so for. And then use their veto to keep it up.
The next president of USA can declare a national emergency over gun violence, healthcare and anything else they may desire to do so for. And then use their veto to keep it up.
Do repubs still pretend to be the small gov party or is that basically out the window and only Libertarians like Rand Paul still even care about that issue? I mean, say what you will about pube-head but he's actually very principled compared to well, most of his political party.
The next president of USA can declare a national emergency over gun violence, healthcare and anything else they may desire to do so for. And then use their veto to keep it up.Assuming Congress will let them, which they almost certainly won't, thanks to the vast majority of both parties being thoroughly corrupt.
The next president of USA can declare a national emergency over gun violence, healthcare and anything else they may desire to do so for. And then use their veto to keep it up.Assuming Congress will let them, which they almost certainly won't, thanks to the vast majority of both parties being thoroughly corrupt.
While that's cute, unless there's a law passed, hands are tied if Trump gets away with this.
Ironbite-and the GOP marches once more into obscurity but not fast enough.
The next president of USA can declare a national emergency over gun violence, healthcare and anything else they may desire to do so for. And then use their veto to keep it up.Assuming Congress will let them, which they almost certainly won't, thanks to the vast majority of both parties being thoroughly corrupt.
While that's cute, unless there's a law passed, hands are tied if Trump gets away with this.
Ironbite-and the GOP marches once more into obscurity but not fast enough.
whats Graham frightened of, wasn't he positioning himself as a moderate Trump critic a while back?
whats Graham frightened of, wasn't he positioning himself as a moderate Trump critic a while back?
I know Mueller has delivered his report but has it been released?
So twelve million people are about to lose their health insurance. No more protections for pre existing conditions and no plan to replace since Trump doesn't have the house anymore all because Trump feels vindicated?
So twelve million people are about to lose their health insurance. No more protections for pre existing conditions and no plan to replace since Trump doesn't have the house anymore all because Trump feels vindicated?
Of course, this is why Obama should have pulled people like Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson into the Oval Office back in 2010 and politically forced them to go for expanding Medicare, since if Medicare isn't unconstitutional as is, changing the age limit would similarly not be unconstitutional.
Beside from that, when we talk about the concern of the environment as an "elitist" concern, one year ago, I was waitressing in a taco shop in downtown Manhattan. I just got health insurance for the first time a month ago. This is not an elitist issue, this is a quality of life issue.
You wanna tell people that their concern and their desire for clean air and clean water is "elitist"? Tell that to the kids in the South Bronx which are suffering from the highest rates of childhood asthma in the country. Tell that to the families in Flint whose kids have their blood is ascending in lead levels, their brains are damaged for the rest of their lives, call them "elitist". You're telling them that those kids are trying to get on a plane to Davos?
People are dying. They are dying. And the response across the other side of the aisle is to introduce an amendment five minutes before a hearing in a markup? This is serious. This should not be a partisan issue. This is about our constituents and all of our lives. Iowa, Nebraska, broad swaths of the Midwest are drowning right now, underwater. Farms, towns that will never be recovered and never come back. And we're here, and people are more concerned about helping oil companies than helping their own families? I don't think so. I don't think so.
This is about our lives. This is about American lives. And it should not be partisan. Science should not be partisan. We are facing a national crisis, and if we do not ascend to that crisis, if we do not ascend to the levels in which we were threatened at the Great Depression, when we were threatened in World War II, if we do not ascend to those levels, if we tell the American public that we are more willing to invest and bail out big banks than we are willing to invest in our farmers and our urban families, then I don't know what we're here doing. I don't know what we're here doing.
I'll tell you what's going on. She represents ME. She represents everyone I know. She represents the normal people. She cares about OUR interests. In my lifetime I have NEVER felt this represented before in government. It's time for government to work for us, as it was intended. To all the people coming out of the woodwork to spew hate: I love that she represents you too, and that her policies will benefit you as well. I feel sorry for all those that can't or won't see this.
person who has no business being near government and clearly unqualified for the position
Well that's not much different because if you have a public option, I guarantee you the public option will also drive all the private insurance companies out of business.
So look, this is a prescription for turning America into a western European country.
Fox News's Bret Baier asked McConnell about the Republican plan for health care:
McConnell said Americans should know that Republicans are "all in favor of covering pre-existing conditions."
McConnell said there's no point in bringing a Republican health care plan to a vote right now, with Democrats in control of the House.
Turtle learned nothing from Mid-terms. Absolutely nothing.
Ironbite-beautiful.
Which is why the plan some of them are currently "working" on says that insurance companies can't reject you for having a pre-existing condition, but doesn't bother to require that they actually COVER that condition...
QuoteMcConnell said there's no point in bringing a Republican health care plan to a vote right now, with Democrats in control of the House.
You've had control of both the House and the Senate since 2010. What was stopping you THEN, Mitch? Other than the fact that you have no plan, but want to make like Joe McCarthy with his "list of Communist sympathizers" and pretend that you have a FANTASTIC plan hidden in back room somewhere, but no one can ever see it?
Trump's thinking about maybe releasing detained migrants in sanctuary cities:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/12/us/politics/trump-sanctuary-cities.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/12/us/politics/trump-sanctuary-cities.html)
If he does this, I'm betting his hardline supporters are gonna turn on him. The ones who don't try and spin it as him playing 4D chess, anyway.
EDIT: https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/ohio-abortion-ban-first-heartbeat-1.5095378
Now, in a case that will go to the Supreme Court, a "first heartbeat" abortion ban has been enacted in Ohio. Time to see if Casey will be upheld by the current membership of that body...
Once they manage to undo abortion rights - they will try to bring back segregation.
Let's try and be realistic here, not run around like the sky is falling. While I could see new restrictions on abortion coming around, I don't think the GOP will try to outright ban it. Why would they get rid of one of their biggest rallying points? And if they really wanted to get rid of abortion on a national level, why didn't they try before the midterms? They only tried to ban abortions after 20 weeks.
Ironbite-and also Trump's more popular in Kentucky then McConnell is.
Hey thanks for making my point for me. The reason why Turtle goes along with everything the Orange Piss Pot does is a combination of Trump knows what Russia found out about him, his wife's job depends on it, and Trump's more popular then him in Kentucky. All that equals the most spineless worm in Congress at the moment who's doing everything in his power to keep the baby happy.
Ironbite-cause if he doesn't, bye bye cushy Congressional job.
Let's try and be realistic here, not run around like the sky is falling. While I could see new restrictions on abortion coming around, I don't think the GOP will try to outright ban it. Why would they get rid of one of their biggest rallying points? And if they really wanted to get rid of abortion on a national level, why didn't they try before the midterms? They only tried to ban abortions after 20 weeks.
Let's try and be realistic here, not run around like the sky is falling. While I could see new restrictions on abortion coming around, I don't think the GOP will try to outright ban it. Why would they get rid of one of their biggest rallying points? And if they really wanted to get rid of abortion on a national level, why didn't they try before the midterms? They only tried to ban abortions after 20 weeks.
Let's try and be realistic here, not run around like the sky is falling. While I could see new restrictions on abortion coming around, I don't think the GOP will try to outright ban it. Why would they get rid of one of their biggest rallying points? And if they really wanted to get rid of abortion on a national level, why didn't they try before the midterms? They only tried to ban abortions after 20 weeks.
The laws they've been drawing up for the states they control are clearly designed to ban abortion entirely. And they want to push them to the Supreme Court to get the SC to reverse Roe.
The one they just passed in Texas makes abortion MURDER. With all punishments included, including the death penalty. I doubt they're stupid enough to try for it, but still...
Let's try and be realistic here, not run around like the sky is falling. While I could see new restrictions on abortion coming around, I don't think the GOP will try to outright ban it. Why would they get rid of one of their biggest rallying points? And if they really wanted to get rid of abortion on a national level, why didn't they try before the midterms? They only tried to ban abortions after 20 weeks.
I'm sure he just got emotional and made a typo.
Dynamic Paragon Lana, why does your head always happen to be in the sand? (https://www.npr.org/2019/04/11/712455980/a-bill-banning-most-abortions-becomes-law-in-ohio)
Let's try and be realistic here, not run around like the sky is falling. While I could see new restrictions on abortion coming around, I don't think the GOP will try to outright ban it. Why would they get rid of one of their biggest rallying points? And if they really wanted to get rid of abortion on a national level, why didn't they try before the midterms? They only tried to ban abortions after 20 weeks.
Dynamic Paragon Lana, why does your head always happen to be in the sand? (https://www.npr.org/2019/04/11/712455980/a-bill-banning-most-abortions-becomes-law-in-ohio)
Because you don't need a national bill to do it--not at first, when you don't have the support. Get some state bills through. Get Casey overturned. Pass a bunch of restrictive laws in all the states they still control. Show that the sky didn't fall.
Right now, though, I'm wondering what's next: Coit, Brown or Griswold.
Because you don't need a national bill to do it--not at first, when you don't have the support. Get some state bills through. Get Casey overturned. Pass a bunch of restrictive laws in all the states they still control. Show that the sky didn't fall.
Right now, though, I'm wondering what's next: Coit, Brown or Griswold.
Griswold, Obergefell, and Brown, in that order.
Glad Hillary didn’t win and ensure their demise.
Because you don't need a national bill to do it--not at first, when you don't have the support. Get some state bills through. Get Casey overturned. Pass a bunch of restrictive laws in all the states they still control. Show that the sky didn't fall.
Right now, though, I'm wondering what's next: Coit, Brown or Griswold.
Griswold, Obergefell, and Brown, in that order.
Glad Hillary didn’t win and ensure their demise.
Point on Obergefell, though I think it will be targeted before Griswold.
As for Clinton... remember, if Trump left office tomorrow, the US would still be in a situation bad enough that people were willing to elect Donald Trump.
So, what's the word on the Mueller report? It's out now so pretty soon we should have people fighting for the right to tell their opinion on it...
I don't know why they bend over backwards to protect this asshole so much.
So him obstructing justice is now a crime done by the democrats? What logic hoops did he jump through to get to that one?
Clearly, the Democrats aren't letting him make America great again.
He just posted on his Twitter feed that the Moon is part of Mars...
Sarah Huckabee Sanders is finally leaving the Trump administration. Probably to do a show on Fox.
She is a more talented liar than Spicer. If Fox News has loosened their policy on female personalities' looks she might do well there. Other news channels might be interested in having her as a political commentator, too.Sarah Huckabee Sanders is finally leaving the Trump administration. Probably to do a show on Fox.
She should ask Sean Spicer how it went for him.
So Justin Amash has quit the GOP, not long after saying Trump should be impeached, drawing a primary challenger who was rolling in the double digits ahead of him, and then leaving the Freedom Caucus.
Can he win a three-way House race, or would it throw his seat to the Democratic candidate, or is this a prelude to a Presidential run under the Libertarian banner (which itself might throw that election to the Democratic candidate)?
So Justin Amash has quit the GOP, not long after saying Trump should be impeached, drawing a primary challenger who was rolling in the double digits ahead of him, and then leaving the Freedom Caucus.
Can he win a three-way House race, or would it throw his seat to the Democratic candidate, or is this a prelude to a Presidential run under the Libertarian banner (which itself might throw that election to the Democratic candidate)?
Can he win? no. Has it been done before? Murkowski.
Now watch as the Republicans blame the Democrats for this.
“There are too few members of our Republican conference that are women or African-American or are a minority,” the Taylorville Republican told a group of local women who were invited to hear him speak at the Old State Capitol on Monday afternoon.
“I get asked a lot, ‘what do you think as a Republican with the fact that you have many fewer women in your conference today than you ever have?’ he volunteered. “I like to remind people that it is Nancy Pelosi who in many cases spent millions of dollars to elect a male Democrat over a female Republicans in swing districts.”
In fact, Pelosi’s decision to back Democratic men in swing districts did help defeat two Republican women in swing districts, but her political and financial backing also aided in key victories for 17 Democratic women over Republican men in the same year, tilting the scales of Congressional gender diversity more in line with the American population than ever before.
Public: Why did you ally with spinal fluid drinking aliens?
Republicans: Well...well...WE WOULDN'T HAVE HAD TO IF IT WASN'T FOR THE DEMOCRATS!! WE HAVE TO BE PRO-SPINAL FLUID ALIENS!!!
Man, imagine if Pelosi was actually the force that they think she is. Would be nice.
AOC was born in New York. Even so Puerto Rico isn't a country. Rashida Tlaib was born in Detroit. Omar hasn't lived in Somalia since she was ten years old. To equate her with a country she hasn't lived in for twenty six years is fucking ridiculous.
(https://scontent.fsyd4-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/37091458_1613148635474233_2996234881509359616_n.jpg?_nc_cat=108&_nc_oc=AQkSIFXlkrMfWfa_cMXArl19RFqhn68-Cc49cUMb5IPN55LPMkxUs1kbah4w6l2GDAMrnlJs_sRAEqN1lh01g_Mw&_nc_ht=scontent.fsyd4-1.fna&oh=c5ea97ac7de04199cf57b203dddd2921&oe=5DB7150C)Fake? Hopefully, probably. Believable, well...I'm going with yeah
Can someone explain to me what a vote to condemn Trump's racists tweets accomplishes exactly? It just seems like a wag of the finger. Do they expect Trump to just say oh wait I was wrong I'm sorry?
Can someone explain to me what a vote to condemn Trump's racists tweets accomplishes exactly? It just seems like a wag of the finger. Do they expect Trump to just say oh wait I was wrong I'm sorry?
So yeah it accomplished nothing. Hardcore Republicans don't accept the racism coming from within their own party. The democrats think it's racist. This will all be blown over by next week. Just another day in America.
2020 is going to be ugly for Democrats. Younger Millenial voters want to move more to the left while while older Boomers want things to move to the center. If Biden becomes the nominee it could discourage younger democrats to come out to vote because he'll be seen as too similar to Trump age wise and out of touch with what younger voters want. If Sanders or Warren or Harris or Pete become the nominee it would discourage boomers because socialism is teh scary.
Still better than 'lock her up'.
Still better than 'lock her up'.
Considering the state Somalia is in? It's worse.
He's going to get a sitting Congresscritter killed.
Ironbite-and he won't understand why when it's a member of the GOP.
Still better than 'lock her up'.
Considering the state Somalia is in? It's worse.
Well the more serious thing is that you would be illegally deporting a US citizen
He's going to get a sitting Congresscritter killed.
Ironbite-and he won't understand why when it's a member of the GOP.
Why do you think it would be a Republican? If it's going to be anyone, my money's on one of Ocasio-Cortez, Tlaib, Omar, Pressley, or Amash.Still better than 'lock her up'.
Considering the state Somalia is in? It's worse.
Well the more serious thing is that you would be illegally deporting a US citizen
That too.
"Her mother's cousin's half-brother's aunt's uncle's grandfather's former roommate was...BIN LADEN!!! SHE IS A TERRORIST BY EXTENSION!!"
Woman tells Trump, in person, her family was killed, Trump asks "where are they now?" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=108&v=QBvgJudB28U)
Anything that isn't about him gets filtered out I guess...
"Her mother's cousin's half-brother's aunt's uncle's grandfather's former roommate was...BIN LADEN!!! SHE IS A TERRORIST BY EXTENSION!!"
*mashes non-existent like button*
Gov. Reagan: Last night, I tell you, to watch that thing on television as I did--
Pres. Nixon: Yeah.
Reagan: To see those, those monkeys from those African countries--damn them, they're still uncomfortable wearin' shoes--
Nixon: (laughs)
Nixon: The tail wags the dog there, doesn't it?
Reagan: Yeah.
Nixon: The tail wags the dog.
What were they referring to?
It seems it was Reagan blaming the African delegates more no?
Just in case you were wondering, you're right Trump is completely insane. https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-oped-the-great-crackup-20190825-3m5btyfh3bd4jaw4dkzmgcxjfm-story.html (https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-oped-the-great-crackup-20190825-3m5btyfh3bd4jaw4dkzmgcxjfm-story.html)
Unfortunately he still has the complete support of the Republican Party
Donald J. Trump
Verified account @realDonaldTrump
The question I was asked most today by fellow World Leaders, who think the USA is doing so well and is stronger than ever before, happens to be, “Mr. President, why does the American media hate your Country so much? Why are they rooting for it to fail?”
The president of the US seems to have too many protections. The fact that you can't arrest a sitting president for committing a crime seems asinine to me.
The president of the US seems to have too many protections. The fact that you can't arrest a sitting president for committing a crime seems asinine to me.
The president of the US seems to have too many protections. The fact that you can't arrest a sitting president for committing a crime seems asinine to me.
Not sure that's a law as such, it's just the instructions Mueller was given for his investigation.
And it's hardly unique, the President of Germany is immune from prosecution, for instance, and can only be removed on impeachment (by either the Bundestag or Bundesrat) and subsequent conviction by the Federal Constitutional Court.
The president of the US seems to have too many protections. The fact that you can't arrest a sitting president for committing a crime seems asinine to me.
The assumption was that if the President was breaking the law, it would clearly be enough for the Senate to vote to remove him... I'd say the founders didn't see the Republican Party coming, but actually, they DID (which is why they railed against the idea of parties to begin with).
How many layers down the reality denial cake are we now?
So Donald I've never heard of a category five hurricane despite four occurring during his presidency Trump
And remember they're tremendously Big and tremendously wet.
What exactly does Trump have to gain from this fiasco? I mean the majority of Alabama will support him even if he didn't give them this hey the hurricane is going to hit you too shout out. What's the point in taking up a whole news week and press conferences over a gaffe? Not to mention the lack of sympathy being directed to the people actually effected by the hurricane.
The majority of Alabama would support President Trump even if one of the campaign objectives of his 2020 run was to melt all Alabamans and boil them down into resources for the government to use.
What exactly does Trump have to gain from this fiasco?
So Donald Trump wants to ban vaping because it's been reported by the CDC that six people have died from vaping related illnesses. Six people.
Meanwhile according to the gun violence archive 10.408 people have died and 20,760 people have been injured from fire arm related incidents in 2019 alone. With only 2,200 being classified as defensive use. But no we can't talk about banning guns or making guns safer or even look into gun violence.
This is just Trump being in the pockets of the big tobacco industry.
I guess I was wrong it looks like Pelosi is looking into impeachment for this.
WHY DOES HE THINK HE'S SOME SORT OF FUCKING MAFIOSA!?
Ironbite-god he'd be found face down in the Hudson if he was.
Bill Clinton's approval ratings went up during his whole impeachment proceedings.
Is there any video of him calling the president Mozzerella?
I'm not seeing any credible sources that says he did.
Great! Thank you @HillaryClinton. You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from behind the curtain. From the day I announced my candidacy, there has been a concerted campaign to destroy my reputation. We wondered who was behind it and why. Now we know — it was always you, through your proxies and powerful allies in the corporate media and war machine, afraid of the threat I pose.
It’s now clear that this primary is between you and me. Don’t cowardly hide behind your proxies. Join the race directly.
I don't think it's Putin's goal to put in someone who is loyal to him, but more to stir chaos and distrust with the American electorate.
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/G19/HI#H02
According to The Green Papers, Rep. Gabbard will not run for re-election to the House and is instead focusing on being elected President.
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/G19/HI#H02
According to The Green Papers, Rep. Gabbard will not run for re-election to the House and is instead focusing on being elected President.
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/G19/HI#H02
According to The Green Papers, Rep. Gabbard will not run for re-election to the House and is instead focusing on being elected President.
Yep. And there are whispers around Washington that she's asking Wall Street about backing for a third party run... But she doesn't want it getting out yet.
So I think a bunch of very loud whiners owe Hilary Clinton YET another apology. Not that she'll ever get it.
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/G19/HI#H02
According to The Green Papers, Rep. Gabbard will not run for re-election to the House and is instead focusing on being elected President.
Yep. And there are whispers around Washington that she's asking Wall Street about backing for a third party run... But she doesn't want it getting out yet.
So I think a bunch of very loud whiners owe Hilary Clinton YET another apology. Not that she'll ever get it.
Except that Sec. Clinton's claim, as I recall, was a little more specific than just "someone will make a third-party run"; she specifically mentioned Russia in connection with said third-party run, and that's yet to be seen.
So the 2019 election just happened yesterday, and while it was nothing major. The Democrats won control of the Virginia Senate for the first time in two decades and won the governorship in Kentucky one of the saddest states in the country. They lost the governorship in Mississippi but it was closer than usual. Its left Republicans with a lot to explain. Could this be a sign of the momentum of the election next year?
So the 2019 election just happened yesterday, and while it was nothing major. The Democrats won control of the Virginia Senate for the first time in two decades and won the governorship in Kentucky one of the saddest states in the country. They lost the governorship in Mississippi but it was closer than usual. Its left Republicans with a lot to explain. Could this be a sign of the momentum of the election next year?
The Democrats didn't have Mississippi in the first place. Louisiana might flip Republican in the runoff.
Flipping the Virginia Legislature was a big win, though.
EDIT: Also, worth noting, Bevin hasn't conceded in Kentucky and has requested a recount--as he should, considering how close his election was and that all the other downballot statewide races were won comfortably by the Republican candidate.
Without going to a recount? That would be insane
Without going to a recount? That would be insane
Thanks to a law passed by the Republican Congress plus the voting machines they use, recounts in Kentucky are impossible anyway. What they're asking is for them to double-check the count.
I'm going to toss you the DailyKos link to this story. Usually I'd go straight to the source instead, but the source in this case is buried in unskippable ads...
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/11/6/1897609/-Kentucky-Republicans-taking-steps-to-outright-steal-governor-s-election-they-just-lost
People did start screaming, though, so they've been backing away from this idea. Better to watch out, though, because they might just be letting the heat die down.
Bevin only has 30 days to ask for a recheck, but I don't see any limit on contesting the election. I'm guessing if Beshear gets sworn in, that'll be the end of it. Though with these assholes, who knows? They could pull a Wisconsin or a North Carolina and get Bevin to sign a bunch of bills giving Congress a bunch of the Gov.'s power...Without going to a recount? That would be insane
Thanks to a law passed by the Republican Congress plus the voting machines they use, recounts in Kentucky are impossible anyway. What they're asking is for them to double-check the count.
I'm going to toss you the DailyKos link to this story. Usually I'd go straight to the source instead, but the source in this case is buried in unskippable ads...
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/11/6/1897609/-Kentucky-Republicans-taking-steps-to-outright-steal-governor-s-election-they-just-lost
People did start screaming, though, so they've been backing away from this idea. Better to watch out, though, because they might just be letting the heat die down.
So basically keep the pressure up for a while? Is there a deadline or point where they can no longer try for that?
Erika Calihan, the Lexington-area woman behind the event, has spent the last three days making unverifiable and unsubstantiated claims of fraud and calling on the attorney general’s office to open some sort of investigation into her allegations ― most of which seem derived primarily from posts she has read on Facebook, screenshots of unofficial election results and rumors she’s heard.
Bevin, who lost the election by roughly 5,000 votes, has described Calihan as “my friend” and appointed her to a state government position earlier this year.
Calihan’s claims have gone viral-ish, at least in the corners of the internet allergic to basic facts and prone to thinking that prominent Democrats operate a child sex dungeon in the basement of a Washington, D.C., pizza restaurant that has no basement, or that the Sandy Hook school shooting was a hoax meant to help the feds confiscate guns they still haven’t gotten around to confiscating.
That Bevin chose to dignify the conspiracy theorists’ fever dreams has only helped bring more chaos into an election that was already “shaping up to be a case study in the real-world impact of disinformation — and a preview of what election-security officials and experts fear could unfold a year from now if the 2020 presidential election comes down to the wire,” as The New York Times suggested last week when conservatives took a parody tweet about destroying ballots as hard evidence of fraud.
Bevin spent the weekend raising the possibility that he lost a “dirty election.”
“I would rather lose a clean election than win a dirty election. And I’ll be darned if I want to lose a dirty election,” he said at an event for young conservatives, the Louisville Courier-Journal reported.
The reason he hasn’t conceded, Bevin said, was because “if you do not think that there are people that would try to hijack our political process, and while they are yelling about Russian collusion at the front door and telling us to man the front gates against the Russians, they are all at the back gate robbing us blind. I’m telling you. I’m telling you.”
Trump denies sending Giuliani to Ukraine
In an interview with former Fox News host Bill O'Reilly posted Tuesday, President Trump said he did not order his personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, to go to Ukraine in order to dig up damaging information on his political rivals. "No, I didn't direct him, but he is a warrior, he is a warrior," Trump said. Giuliani has said he went to Ukraine at the behest of Trump, carrying out an investigation "concerning 2016 Ukrainian collusion and corruption." O'Reilly asked Trump why Giuliani went to Ukraine, and the president responded, "You have to ask Rudy. Rudy has other clients, other than me. He's done a lot of work in Ukraine over the years." Several of the witnesses who testified in the impeachment inquiry said Giuliani was pursuing a shadow Ukraine agenda in order to get the country to launch an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden.
This does not discredit what Sondland is saying about Trump - it just means Sondland is a creep in his personal life. A creep who is saying some incredibly damning things about Trump.
Stalin called everyone who didn't agree with him an "enemy of the people." He said that they wanted to restore the old order, and for this purpose, "the enemies of the people" had linked up with the forces of reaction internationally. As a result, several hundred thousand honest people perished. Everyone lived in fear in those days. Everyone expected that at any moment there would be a knock on the door in the middle of the night and that knock on the door would prove fatal ... [P]eople not to Stalin's liking were annihilated, honest party members, irreproachable people, loyal and hard workers for our cause who had gone through the school of revolutionary struggle under Lenin's leadership. This was utter and complete arbitrariness. And now is all this to be forgiven and forgotten? Never!
...the way the Jews work. They are deceivers, they plot, they lie, they do whatever they have to do to accomplish their political agenda. This "impeach Trump" movement is a Jew coup, and the American people better wake up to it really fast, because this thing is moving now towards a vote in the House and then a trial in the Senate. We could have a trial by before Christmas. This country could be in civil war at Christmastime!
(That's right.)
Members of the U.S. military are going to have to take a stand, just like they did in the 1860s with the Civil War. They're gonna have to decide, are you fighting for the North or the South. Members of the government are going to have to take a side. Instead of North-South it's gonna be Left or Right. People are gonna be forced, possibly by this Christmas, to take a stand, because of this Jew coup in the United States.
We have weeks to stop it. That's why I'm speaking out. That's why I'm putting everything on the line, saying this is a coup led by Jews to overthrow the Constitutionally-elected President of the United States.
And it's beyond removing Donald Trump. It's removing you and me. That's what's at the heart of it.
(That's right.)
...
You have been taken over by a Jewish cabal, a Bolshevik revolution, and I'm gonna tell you, the church of Jesus Christ, you're next! Get it through your head! They're coming for you! There will be a purge! That's the next that happens when Jews take over a country! They kill millions of Christians!
You know if the right wing nutjobs were right and whatever group they hate was really in control of the world, they'd all have been put to death millennium ago.
Ironbite-but the fact that they aren't doesn't penetrate their little minds.
You know if the right wing nutjobs were right and whatever group they hate was really in control of the world, they'd all have been put to death millennium ago.
Ironbite-but the fact that they aren't doesn't penetrate their little minds.
In any SANE country, it wouldn't be a problem, because Trump would have been tossed. Quickly.
But it's the USA, who insist on doing things THEIR way, and a fucking political party that have been setting up for this since the 70's...
Trump can just use it as fuel to say he was innocent and that the Democrats are the do nothing party.
The democrats don't have anyone exciting enough to beat Trump
The democrats don't have anyone exciting enough to beat Trump
Bernie Sanders. He's the one that's mobilized a real grassroots progressive and young voter driven campaign.
The democrats don't have anyone exciting enough to beat Trump
Bernie Sanders. He's the one that's mobilized a real grassroots progressive and young voter driven campaign.
Bernie Sanders is exciting to younger Millennial voters but scares the more centrist boomer democrats who still hold a lot of power in the party. Bernie doesn't unify the party like Obama did back in 2008. Older Democrats are more interested in Joe Biden. There's pretty much a clash of young and old voters in the party right now.
There is a campaign ad that likens Trump to Thanos. ...And it shows him in his moment of hubris just before he is defeated. BUT this ad has somehow been released by the Trump campaign. Because this way they could show Trump killing every Democrat in the world by snapping his fingers.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/dec/11/trump-thanos-ad-marvel-video?CMP=fb_gu&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR0kQblqg433-yXdsDboR85mkDOTs-4ppp-_p8NcMNxFMpvJ5_h8Ii93wCE#Echobox=1576082779
Granted, the article does note that a previous meme from Trump campaign was about the wall in GoT which also turns out to be insufficient and is destroyed.
The democrats don't have anyone exciting enough to beat Trump
Bernie Sanders. He's the one that's mobilized a real grassroots progressive and young voter driven campaign.
Bernie Sanders is exciting to younger Millennial voters but scares the more centrist boomer democrats who still hold a lot of power in the party. Bernie doesn't unify the party like Obama did back in 2008. Older Democrats are more interested in Joe Biden. There's pretty much a clash of young and old voters in the party right now.
Sanders wins if he gets unlikely voters to turn out--see Michigan, 2016. Otherwise, he loses.
The radical political position of giving people in need medicine.
The democrats don't have anyone exciting enough to beat Trump
Bernie Sanders. He's the one that's mobilized a real grassroots progressive and young voter driven campaign.
https://www.newsweek.com/doctors-arrested-protest-border-patrol-flu-vaccines-detained-migrants-1476691?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf (https://www.newsweek.com/doctors-arrested-protest-border-patrol-flu-vaccines-detained-migrants-1476691?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf)
Meanwhile, President Thanos has decided that in addition to wanting to get rid of congressional Democrats, he'd also like to get rid of all those pesky migrants fleeing violence in Central America (much of it ultimately caused by the US-instigated "War on Drugs").
At least three detained migrants have died of influenza this year, and a group of licenced doctors in California went to the camps where they're being held to give, at their own expense, flu shots to those most at risk of dying from said preventable disease.
The doctors were instead detained, cited, and released without being allowed to administer the medicine.
Thanos's DHS put out this statement on Twitter: "Of course Border Patrol isn't going to let a random group of radical political activists show up and start injecting people with drugs." Never mind that these are licenced doctors with flu shots.
If Thanos doesn't go on trial for crimes against humanity after he leaves office (or, better, while he's still in office), the US will be clearly signaling, yet again, that it is a rogue state and its leaders are above the law and will not be held accountable for any actions, however heinous.
Did anyone here read or hear about the narcissistic fit that Trump wrote to Nancy Pelosi yesterday? https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/17/politics/read-trump-impeachment-letter-to-house-democrats/index.html
They went too fast. There was so much else to nail him on, but as Pelosi admitted, Trump's good for Democratic fundraising. None of it would have gone anywhere in the Senate, but they wanted this over and done with so they can say they tried.
As the public becomes more in favor of removing the son of a bitch, let's see how long the Republicans can stand to keep around their golden heifer.
https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/ek1ekk/random_maralago_guests_were_told_more_about_plan/
"Random guests at Mar A Lago were told more about the plan to kill Soleimeni more than Congress was"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HOLY SHIT
https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/ek1ekk/random_maralago_guests_were_told_more_about_plan/
"Random guests at Mar A Lago were told more about the plan to kill Soleimeni more than Congress was"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HOLY SHIT
https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/ek1ekk/random_maralago_guests_were_told_more_about_plan/
"Random guests at Mar A Lago were told more about the plan to kill Soleimeni more than Congress was"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HOLY SHIT
So... Trump is just blabbing classified material to random people? :o
https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/ek1ekk/random_maralago_guests_were_told_more_about_plan/
"Random guests at Mar A Lago were told more about the plan to kill Soleimeni more than Congress was"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HOLY SHIT
So... Trump is just blabbing classified material to random people? :o
There was some gun nut who said MLK would have been pro second amendment because something about if slaves had guns their lives would have been better. And I'm like yeah the man was killed by a fire arm that white people have been using top hold black people down for centuries, of course he would have been pro gun.
Martin Luther King, Jr., known for peaceful resistance, at the same time recognized the importance of gun ownership for self-defense. King understood the risks involved in being an outspoken civil rights leader, living in Jim Crow era Alabama, and took measures to protect himself, his family and others around him.
King was a gun owner. In fact, he had a few guns–one visitor to the King family home described King’s supply of weapons as an “armory.”
Additionally, William Worthy, a journalist who covered the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, reported that he almost sat on a loaded gun while visiting King’s parsonage.
Martin said he would never himself resort to violence even in self-defense, but he would not demand that of others. That was a religious commitment into which one had to grow.
It must be hard writing at the Onion these days as there is every chance Kellyanne Conway might say this before the week is out:
https://politics.theonion.com/kellyanne-conway-suggests-martin-luther-king-jr-would-1841137797 (https://politics.theonion.com/kellyanne-conway-suggests-martin-luther-king-jr-would-1841137797)
According to Graham, if Trump “thought he was doing something wrong, he would probably shut up about it.”
“The president believes that the Ukraine interfered in out election,” Graham continued. “I can tell you without any doubt it was the Russians who hacked into the DNC. It was not the Ukrainians. I cannot say that there was nobody in the Ukraine that had worked with [Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort] that did a number on him. I don’t know.”
“All I can tell you is from the president’s point of view, he did nothing wrong in his mind,” the South Carolina Republican insisted.
- https://www.rawstory.com/2020/01/lindsey-graham-screeches-at-reporters-over-impeachment-trump-did-nothing-wrong-in-his-mind/ (https://www.rawstory.com/2020/01/lindsey-graham-screeches-at-reporters-over-impeachment-trump-did-nothing-wrong-in-his-mind/)
Oh I'm sorry officer. I didn't know the speed limit on this road was 30 mph and not 100 like I was going.
Oh you didn't know? Well ok then you're free to go. Said no police officer ever.
Oh, I'm sorry officer. I'm allowed to go 100 mph because I don't think speed limit violations are a crime.
Oh, okay, you're free to go!
Yeah but I'm not certain there's anything Trump could do to detract his followers since he's developed a cult of personality who take his word as gospel at this point.
Dershowitz is the same man who argued in favor of Jeffrey Epstein.
It shows.
I'm surprised he deleted this rather than penning an executive order forcing the Chiefs to move to Kansas City, Kansas.
I'm surprised he deleted this rather than penning an executive order forcing the Chiefs to move to Kansas City, Kansas.
Im surprised he didn't just double down and have his press secretary go on fox news and say that the Kansas city chiefs always played in Kansas and then have fox news repeat it ad nauseam until people questioned their own reality.
I'm surprised he deleted this rather than penning an executive order forcing the Chiefs to move to Kansas City, Kansas.
Im surprised he didn't just double down and have his press secretary go on fox news and say that the Kansas city chiefs always played in Kansas and then have fox news repeat it ad nauseam until people questioned their own reality.
A staffer probably convinced him that the one thing about which Americans will not accept alternative facts is the NFL.
EDIT: Unless, of course, you're a black guy who asked members of the military what the most respectful way would be to protest police brutality. Then you hate the troops and are disrespecting the national anthem and the flag and should be blackballed from the league.
Yeah, go fuck your mother, you son of a bitch cause I'm gonna fucking blow your brains out you fucking piece of shit mother, fucker, you're a fucking piece of shit. You fucking piece of shit mother fucker. Yeah watch. I'm gonna fuck your asshole you piece of shit son of a bitch. Yeah come get me. I guarantee I'll fuck your brains out.
Pelosi just ripped up his speach. Road Side bomb on her way home and any other Dumbocrats.
Way we're going? Probably will hit us.
Ironbite-and the Orange Piss Pot will insist that nothing's wrong until it's too late.
Donald Trump lies dying of the Coronavirus. His last words? "I wouldn't have gotten sick if I wasn't working on dealing with Obama and Crooked Hillary--blaargh!"
#GiantAsteroid2020
Speaking of our government being awful
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2020/03/20/senators-accused-of-insider-trading-dumping-stocks-after-coronavirus-briefings/#46228c054a45
Now, you may recall the name Jim Inhofe (R- Oklahoma). Probably because he's a jackass who's been quoted on the mainpage a couple of different times.
https://fstdt.com/DBS
https://fstdt.com/W6G4
and also apparently did a plane stunt to announce his reelection campaign.
https://www.stwnewspress.com/news/sen-inhofe-flies-plane-upside-down-announcing-he-is-still/article_f0f2c632-5f0f-11ea-8c2f-ff9539759600.html
Other names are Richard Burr (R- North Carolina), Kelly Loefler (R- Georgia) who is married to the literal chairman of the New York Stock Exchange, Ron Johnson (R-Wisconsin) and Diane Feinstein (D- California). I know Burr & Inhofe are Trump bootlickers but I've not heard of Loefler or Johnson before.
Regardless, I hope all of them are removed from office as soon as possible whether through the ballot box or an investigation into their shady dealings. Very reminiscent to me of former VP Richard "Emperor Palpatine" Cheney and his little Haliburton buddies in terms of using human suffering as a chance for self-enrichment.
I admit I don't know much about insider trading laws, but if Sen. Feinstein sold said shares with the expectation that their price would drop based on what she found out, wouldn't that still be insider trading? All it would say is that Sens. Burr and Loefler are better at stock trading than Sen. Feinstein.
It also wasn't her stocks to sell. It was her husband who sold them.
It also wasn't her stocks to sell. It was her husband who sold them.
Which could still be on a tip (even if a bad tip) from Sen. Feinstein.
Whatever else happens, she should be included in the investigation, at least, because something looks shady even if nothing actually is in her case.
It also wasn't her stocks to sell. It was her husband who sold them.
Which could still be on a tip (even if a bad tip) from Sen. Feinstein.
Whatever else happens, she should be included in the investigation, at least, because something looks shady even if nothing actually is in her case.
The stock that was sold was for something that wasn't even connected to the Coronavirus.
Ironbite-DO FUCKING BETTER AT THIS!
According to Der Spiegel, the G7 foreign ministers haven't been able to agree on a joint statement because of Pompeo's insistence it refer to #coronavirus as the "Wuhan virus". Pompeo did not deny that this morning - said G7 don't agree on everything
And today in gross stupidity from the Trump administration:
https://twitter.com/julianborger/status/1242849535703101444QuoteAccording to Der Spiegel, the G7 foreign ministers haven't been able to agree on a joint statement because of Pompeo's insistence it refer to #coronavirus as the "Wuhan virus". Pompeo did not deny that this morning - said G7 don't agree on everything
Trump said that a Malaria medicine is a cure for Covid-19. Elderly couple saw that some aquarium cleaning powder that they had in the house had a similar name and now one of them is dead from poisoning.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/man-dies-ingesting-chloroquine-prevent-coronavirus-banner-health/story?id=69759570
And yes, though they took the wrong chemicals, they specifically did it because they were trying to follow instructions from the president of USA.
I will tell you this: if you look at before and after, the things they had in there were crazy. They had things, levels of voting that if you ever agreed to it, you'd never have a Republican elected in this country again. They had things in there about, y'know, election days and what you do and all sorts of clawbacks, and they had things that were just totally crazy.
"When somebody is president of the United States, the authority is total," Trump said at Monday's White House coronavirus briefing. "The governors know that."
Taking to Twitter, Trump wrote that some are "saying that it is the Governors decision to open up the states, not that of the President of the United States & the Federal Government. Let it be fully understood that this is incorrect ... it is the decision of the President, and for many good reasons."
Probably when he's elected to his second term.
Did Trump just ask a doctor on live television if they could look into injecting UV lights or disinfectant/bleach into the body to fight Covid?
Did Trump just ask a doctor on live television if they could look into injecting UV lights or disinfectant/bleach into the body to fight Covid?
What is the purpose of having White House News Conferences when the Lamestream Media asks nothing but hostile questions, & then refuses to report the truth or facts accurately.
Maybe he's caught COVID and it's rotting his brain away.
Not gonna shed a single tear for that.
Ironbite-they went with what the Orange Piss Pot said, they get the consequences.
Not gonna shed a single tear for that.
Ironbite-they went with what the Orange Piss Pot said, they get the consequences.
https://www.reddit.com/r/LeopardsAteMyFace/
That is baffling. And pretty telling that even Team Trump isn't going with the Tara Reade stuff.
Yeah that didn't help him. It took Comney announcing that he had found emails on Carlos Danger's laptop to tip the scales.
Ironbite-and he still didn't win the popular vote.
Yeah that didn't help him. It took Comney announcing that he had found emails on Carlos Danger's laptop to tip the scales.
Ironbite-and he still didn't win the popular vote.
It also meant that the Access Hollywood tape didn't hurt him. The whole thing became largely a wash, which kept him in a position where Comey's announcement could hurt Clinton enough for Trump to win.
Yeah that didn't help him. It took Comney announcing that he had found emails on Carlos Danger's laptop to tip the scales.
Ironbite-and he still didn't win the popular vote.
It also meant that the Access Hollywood tape didn't hurt him. The whole thing became largely a wash, which kept him in a position where Comey's announcement could hurt Clinton enough for Trump to win.
This sort of thing NEVER hurts Republicans, because their voters don't care if their guy is immoral.
You're kinda wrong on that. Yeah it didn't do anything for his base, but it did make him flounder pretty badly among Independants. Then Comney put his thumb on the scale and that's all she wrote!
Ironbite-and now we're in this mess.
So Trump is saying that he's taking hydroxchloroquine. Not because he's sick. But he figures it will magically prevent him from getting the virus. This wasn't recommended or even given the thumbs up from his doctor. He instead said something along the lines of, well if that's what you want to do. I have niki fucking clue why he's pushing this drug so much other than he might have a stake in the a company that produces it or one of his family members or someone in his cabinet. The shitty thing about this is if Trump never gets covid 19 he'll claim victory because of the medication that no doctors are saying is a reliable treatment for the coronavirus.
I will tell you this: if you look at before and after, the things they had in there were crazy. They had things, levels of voting that if you ever agreed to it, you'd never have a Republican elected in this country again. They had things in there about, y'know, election days and what you do and all sorts of clawbacks, and they had things that were just totally crazy.
I mean yeah obviously, that's why they love strict voter ID laws targeting minorities (who mostly vote Democratic) but why now vote by mail? I live in a state where even our republicans are pretty happy with it (with one leader, who's position I forget atm, even celebrating and championing it) despite most of the state being democrats. It's weird.
You gotta love the conundrum Republicans have with the freedom of speech and their love of the free market with unregulated power. If a private company decides to censor someone they disagree with they all scream but muh freedom of speeches! At the same time they say that corporations are people too and should be able to vote and influence politics.
Is this a tantrum over Twitter factchecking President Dinglethorp?
Unlike Democrats, who talk a big game about the perils of unchecked corporate power, only to cheer left-leaning megacorps abusing their power against people they disagree with. Not to mention buying into blatant wokewashing.
Unlike Democrats, who talk a big game about the perils of unchecked corporate power, only to cheer left-leaning megacorps abusing their power against people they disagree with. Not to mention buying into blatant wokewashing.
Well then, what's this about?
Because in every instance of "megacorps abusing their power against people liberals disagree with", it's pretty much warranted that the corp responds as it did against conservatives.
QuoteUnlike Democrats, who talk a big game about the perils of unchecked corporate power, only to cheer left-leaning megacorps abusing their power against people they disagree with. Not to mention buying into blatant wokewashing.
What power are they abusing? The freedom of speech? Most megacorps usually speak out against hate speech on their platforms. That's what Democrats usually cheer on. You have a problem with that? You feel a corporation should just roll over and allow anyone to spew hate speech and misinformation and using them as representation even if they don't want it? Republicans want their freedom of speech to spout whatever bullshit they want but then cry when a corporation uses their freedom of speech to call them out on it.
Unlike Democrats, who talk a big game about the perils of unchecked corporate power, only to cheer left-leaning megacorps abusing their power against people they disagree with. Not to mention buying into blatant wokewashing.
A company has a right to decide what goes on on their platform. Just like the owner of FSTDT.net has the right to ban anyone they like, so too does Twitter. This right does not go away when the person they ban is a conservative, a Nazi, or whatever. And if you think it does, I've got some signs I want to put up on your property. I'm sure you won't mind - it's just me exercising my free speech after all.
You have a freedom of speech from the government.
You don't have a freedom of speech to say whatever you want on any given platform. The government can't restrict your speech, but others, others don't have to put up with it. So yes, I am absolutely okay with it, and I don't have a problem with "MUH CONSERVATURD CENSORSHIP WAAAAAH!!"
I don't know much about that Supreme Court case, but what I do know is that Trump's attempt lately to do away with OOGA BOOGA CONSERVATIVES BEING CENSORED got bitchslapped down by the courts and the lawyers of the major tech companies.
And it is kind of rich that in response to this, conservatives want to enact their own censorship.
You can just call me the intolerant left.
And let's say that Twitter is forced to allow all speech onto its platform.
Trump is pissed because they fact checked him. They didn't stop him from saying whatever misleading dangerous shit he wanted to say, they just put up a notice that said "hey, here are the facts about the thing he's tweeting about" and it lead to him signing a fucking executive order that, in the name of "free speech," violates Twitter's free speech.
Quote]
I wouldn't have a problem if they just "called them out". My problem is the fact that they censor.
2. Censorship? From my understanding, this is a revocation of Section 230 in response to Twitter acting as a publisher and editorializing by means of selective moderation. If that's the case, then it's merely enforcement of legislation as written. If Twitter wants to act as a publisher by curating content and deciding who gets to say and see said content, then they have to give up their safe harbor protections.
Yes, I recognize that private companies have the legal right to not let themselves be associated with unsavory speech... unless they're being used as public spaces. The SCOTUS ruled that a company town may technically be private property, but because it's used as a public space, it has to allow first amendment protections. And nobody can tell me with a straight face that Twitter is not being used as a public space. I don't give a shit about who these social media companies are biased in favor of, just how much power they have over public discourse.
1. Being concerned about the integrity of mail-in voting is not "misleading dangerous shit". His motives are certainly far from altruistic, but that doesn't mean he's wrong.
2. Censorship? From my understanding, this is a revocation of Section 230 in response to Twitter acting as a publisher and editorializing by means of selective moderation. If that's the case, then it's merely enforcement of legislation as written. If Twitter wants to act as a publisher by curating content and deciding who gets to say and see said content, then they have to give up their safe harbor protections.
See, I don't get this controversy.
Hate speech should be restricted and fact checking fake news is something that the right wingers in USA have been screaming for more than 4 years by now. Just because it is the president doing those things should not make him immune to repercussions.
And if you're going to go with "just let him lie and spear hate speech, this is a public discussion and other more reliable sources should debate him over it instead of being silenced" then there are several things to consider:
a) If the president of USA is the one spreading misinformation, how many people are going to believe him because of his position? Especially when this misinformation he spreads has a risk to leading to deaths, it would be reckless to not fact check him immediately.
b) Hate speech is harmful and should be stopped. It appears that the POTUS is above the law so no legal repercussions are coming for him for stuff like threatening to have people killed if they protest. At the very least Twitter should treat users equally and silence open hate speech as it is a clear rules violation.
c) As for Trump needing to use Twitter because it is his de-facto platform for speaking to people and even setting govenrment policies, he has other platforms. He is a president and if he wants to release statements to be seen by people, he has a huge number of people who have been hired to enable him to do things like that and claiming that Twitter silencing him is the same as it would be for the random citizen is just plain wrong. If I get my social media accounts shut down I can't call a random TV station and get an immediate interview (or tell my people to do that for me.) If dissidents in Hong Kong get their internet blacked out they can't reach people outside Hong Kong to call attention to their plight. Trump has several platforms that he can use including some that are directly under the control of the government.
2. Censorship? From my understanding, this is a revocation of Section 230 in response to Twitter acting as a publisher and editorializing by means of selective moderation. If that's the case, then it's merely enforcement of legislation as written. If Twitter wants to act as a publisher by curating content and deciding who gets to say and see said content, then they have to give up their safe harbor protections.
Free speech != nobody gets to dispute that I might be wrong. You're not being censored by having an opposing view presented alongside yours.
Trump was not prevented from saying what he wanted to say (including spreading lies about Joe Scarborough--not that I have any love for that wingnut, but nonetheless Trump has been lying about him). Further Twitter did not control who got to see the content he posted regarding the Minneapolis riots which they blocked, since any user could click through if they chose. (When it's not a politician they just delete the tweet, which makes it a pretty damn blatant double-standard in favour of people like Trump.)
Also, actual news reporters are getting arrested or shot at by police in USA.
HOLY HECKING CARP! *THAT* is an infringement of your first amendment and where are all those "first amendment inspectors" now?
Quote
Yes, I recognize that private companies have the legal right to not let themselves be associated with unsavory speech... unless they're being used as public spaces. The SCOTUS ruled that a company town may technically be private property, but because it's used as a public space, it has to allow first amendment protections. And nobody can tell me with a straight face that Twitter is not being used as a public space. I don't give a shit about who these social media companies are biased in favor of, just how much power they have over public discourse.
At the end of the day twitter is a business. A business that makes its money through advertisements and celebrity endorsements. It's shown in the past that if a platform allows hate speech or controversial statements that advertisers will take their business elsewhere. As a corporation they only care about money. Conservatives decided a long time ago that corporations are people too and that money equals speech so that corps could legally donate to their campaigns. So if companies like hobby lobby can take on a religious affiliation to keep women from getting birth control. Twitter can decide how information is presented on their platform.
[People who don't have the advantages he does]
Please won't SOMEBODY think of the poor little Nazis who'd be hurt by hate speech laws?
And I am from America, and I'd trade out our free speech for the anti-hate speech kinds of laws EU countries have any day of the week.
Weren't you against authoritarian libertarianism just a few days ago?
Not to mention how Twitter doesn't apply its rules rules consistently, and sometimes censors and cracks down on completely innocuous stuff, like their recent suspension of Imam Tawhidi for sharing an anti-terrorism cartoon.
And again, I feel like you're misunderstanding my positions. I'm not a conservative and I'm against corporate personhood.
There's a Twitter alternative called Gab that's run by groypers, and as you can probably imagine, it has a strong hard-right bias that tends to manifest as having double standards against left-wingers. If it were Gab that were the ubiquitous social media site, rather than Twitter, would you still be against the government forcing social media sites to choose between abiding by the first amendment and keeping their safe harbor protections?
AfD? Those jokers are never going to win an election of any sort of note. They'll scrape for provinces and claw for mayoral wins, but they're never going to have a winning share in the actual government. And they know it.
As for Fidesz, Hungary is basically a dictatorship by now and not reflective of the EU in general. They're ruled over by a gang of fanatical Christian despots that probably think by now that electricity is a sin. And Fidesz is the forefront of that. They were recently pointed out to not exactly be a real Democracy.
You're pointing out a few outstanding examples to try and make the EU countries seem worse than they really are. If it were up to me, I'd kick out Hungary from the EU and put so many sanctions on them they'd freefall into oblivion. And AfD has no business existing.
Germany also has a history of grand coalitions. It would probably take the AfD winning an outright majority of the second vote to form government; my guess is that the CDU/CSU, SPD, FDP and Greens would rather form a government with Die Linke than let the AfD anywhere near power. (And they don't especially want to form government with Die Linke, probably, but Die Linke is part of the government in Berlin, Bremen and Thuringia anyway alongside the SPD and Greens.)
EDIT: As for AfD existing, they serve as a useful net to catch all the anti-Semites and other such nutcases who can be kicked out of the mainstream parties and left to rot at ~12% in the Bundestag while the rational people run the country.
QuoteWeren't you against authoritarian libertarianism just a few days ago?
I am against authoritarian libertarianism. The point I'm making is that if this is the bed that Republicans and conservatives have chosen to lie in, than they can't cry when they realize that it can go both ways. They love an unchecked free market so much but hate it when it's used against them because they're hypocrites.QuoteNot to mention how Twitter doesn't apply its rules rules consistently, and sometimes censors and cracks down on completely innocuous stuff, like their recent suspension of Imam Tawhidi for sharing an anti-terrorism cartoon.
Ok? There's no law that says twitter has to be consistent. They're free to do with they're business as they want.QuoteAnd again, I feel like you're misunderstanding my positions. I'm not a conservative and I'm against corporate personhood.
You could've fooled me.QuoteThere's a Twitter alternative called Gab that's run by groypers, and as you can probably imagine, it has a strong hard-right bias that tends to manifest as having double standards against left-wingers. If it were Gab that were the ubiquitous social media site, rather than Twitter, would you still be against the government forcing social media sites to choose between abiding by the first amendment and keeping their safe harbor protections?
Fox news is the most watched 24 hour news network. Conservatives have a strong stranglehold on talk radio. They use their platforms to spew hate and disinformation all day everyday. They're highly influential and you could argue that they control the narrative on the daily political discourse. I hate this fact but they're free to do this because it's how they want to run their business. The left hates them but you don't see them having toddler temper tantrums like Trump when they censor or edit left wing talking points. If Gab was the number one influencers on social media which thankfully it is not. Than they are free to decide what they want on their platform. Just like Fox.
Did Sweden have Germany's history of grand coalitions, though?
(And yes, I'm aware that Austria did have that history--more of one, if anything--and it still happened there anyway.)
The Nazis came to power in a different age from this, with drastically different circumstances, and have nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand. We're not talking about stopping the Nazis from coming to power. We're talking about how much better things would be with hate speech laws.
Your citing of these parties also indicates the Perfectionist fallacy, that if something doesn't work perfectly one hundred percent of the time there's no reason to have it.
The Nazis came to power in a different age from this, with drastically different circumstances, and have nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand. We're not talking about stopping the Nazis from coming to power. We're talking about how much better things would be with hate speech laws.
Your citing of these parties also indicates the Perfectionist fallacy, that if something doesn't work perfectly one hundred percent of the time there's no reason to have it.
Are you afraid to answer my question?
I'm not talking about something that's not working perfectly, I'm talking about something that's not working at all.
On a related note, Twitter seems to have started fact-checking more consistently (https://www.newsweek.com/us-cities-burn-twitter-fact-checks-messages-that-may-inflame-racial-tensions-1507626). This feels like a desperate Hail Mary to stop the government from coming down on them, and I'm not sure how much we should trust social media sites to determine what's true, but at least things look like they're changing for the better.
The Nazis came to power in a different age from this, with drastically different circumstances, and have nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand. We're not talking about stopping the Nazis from coming to power. We're talking about how much better things would be with hate speech laws.
Your citing of these parties also indicates the Perfectionist fallacy, that if something doesn't work perfectly one hundred percent of the time there's no reason to have it.
Are you afraid to answer my question?
I'm not talking about something that's not working perfectly, I'm talking about something that's not working at all.
On a related note, Twitter seems to have started fact-checking more consistently (https://www.newsweek.com/us-cities-burn-twitter-fact-checks-messages-that-may-inflame-racial-tensions-1507626). This feels like a desperate Hail Mary to stop the government from coming down on them, and I'm not sure how much we should trust social media sites to determine what's true, but at least things look like they're changing for the better.
I do not know if they could stop the fucking Nazis from coming to power, and I also don't know why this is relevant to the greater conversation here. You introduced this whole "could hate speech legislation stop the Nazis" thing just so you could continue making an argument that hate speech laws do not work, when they very obviously do.
Hmm... are there other options that might work better?
Than imposing martial law? Sure. Haul every police officer who's killed a black guy into court, give them an actual trial with jurors who don't automatically believe that cops can do no wrong and judges who don't throw out evidence like "You're fucked" being on the side of the murderer's rifle, and chuck their asses in prison.
Then pass an actual economic sustenance and recovery plan for COVID that doesn't just read as "hope you like shopping at Wal-Mart, Amazon and Costco because everyone else is going to go out of business" and "hope you like sleeping on the street because you aren't making rent/paying your mortgage for the foreseeable future" and maybe you might start to have an abatement of the chaos.
Hmm... are there other options that might work better?
Are you suggesting that martial law is the best option?
1. This is a breaking point. You think this has nothing to do with, say, Tamir Rice or Eric Garner? Or Trayvon Martin? You think this has nothing to do with every other dead black man whose uniformed (or non-uniformed) murderer got off scot-free in the courts? Who immediately had his past looked into to see if he ever used marijuana rather than having unending shame and scorn heaped on his killer?
2. You can't ease the lockdowns with a pandemic raging; that's just a recipe for more people dying. What you need to do is realize that what is essentially happening is that everybody is being ordered to work for the government: their job is to stay home so that medical personnel aren't overwhelmed with sick people. Consequently, they deserve some form of remuneration for this, which can take the form of rent relief, interest-free mortgage and car-loan deferrals, utility bill relief, and direct cash payments (and similarly for businesses ordered to close). People aren't going to work for $1,200, once, for an indefinite period of time. You need to keep businesses open (commercial rent relief and mortgage deferral) and people in their jobs (wage subsidy) so that everyone knows they'll have something to go back to when things do reopen and you don't have a massive reshuffling of the workforce that will leave many people unemployed for months after the economy starts up again. And anyone who has to be in the line of fire (medical personnel, grocery store workers, and such) should get a gigantic raise.
1. This is a breaking point. You think this has nothing to do with, say, Tamir Rice or Eric Garner? Or Trayvon Martin? You think this has nothing to do with every other dead black man whose uniformed (or non-uniformed) murderer got off scot-free in the courts? Who immediately had his past looked into to see if he ever used marijuana rather than having unending shame and scorn heaped on his killer?
2. You can't ease the lockdowns with a pandemic raging; that's just a recipe for more people dying. What you need to do is realize that what is essentially happening is that everybody is being ordered to work for the government: their job is to stay home so that medical personnel aren't overwhelmed with sick people. Consequently, they deserve some form of remuneration for this, which can take the form of rent relief, interest-free mortgage and car-loan deferrals, utility bill relief, and direct cash payments (and similarly for businesses ordered to close). People aren't going to work for $1,200, once, for an indefinite period of time. You need to keep businesses open (commercial rent relief and mortgage deferral) and people in their jobs (wage subsidy) so that everyone knows they'll have something to go back to when things do reopen and you don't have a massive reshuffling of the workforce that will leave many people unemployed for months after the economy starts up again. And anyone who has to be in the line of fire (medical personnel, grocery store workers, and such) should get a gigantic raise.
1. Yes, I know this isn't just about Floyd's death. But if all four officers being fired and one being hit with criminal charges wasn't enough to prevent/stop the riots, what makes you think reopening old cases will necessarily help?
To be clear, I'm not dismissing your overall idea out of hand, and I think it's something worth exploring regardless. I'm just saying it may not get the results you think it will, especially since there are reports of people deliberately inciting riots.
2. You make some excellent points about remuneration. However, I'm not sure you're addressing the possibility that restlessness from being cooped up was also a contributing factor.
In December, a couple of months after Lt. Bob Kroll, the head of the Minneapolis police union, stood onstage with President Donald Trump at a campaign rally and praised the “wonderful president” for “everything he’s done for law enforcement,” he received a short Facebook message from a disgruntled city resident: “Nazi piece of shit,” the man wrote to him.
Kroll fired off a reply, pointing out his family’s record as defenders of the Allied forces during both World Wars, and then launching into a series of insults: “Keep spewing uniformed [sic] shit from your computer in your moms [sic] basement, loser,” he wrote to the man, according to a report by the Minneapolis City Pages, a local newspaper. “If you hate me so much, why don’t you stop by and beat the shit out of me?…My bet is it won’t happen, because you are a cowardly cunt.”
It might not have been the response you’d expect from a public official who represents 800-plus rank-and-file police officers. But Kroll, who has led the Police Officers Federation of Minneapolis for five years, has a reputation for inflammatory remarks. Now, his brash leadership and influence over the police department’s culture are in the spotlight amid protests over police violence in the city after George Floyd’s death at the hands of a white officer on Monday.
“Now is not the time to rush to judgment and immediately condemn our officers,” Kroll said about Floyd’s death.
As Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey calls for reform and the district attorney files criminal charges against the officer, Derek Chauvin, activists are demanding changes to a department they say has long been plagued by racism and misconduct. Kroll, who has been accused of using excessive force and making racist remarks in the past, is standing behind his colleague as the public backlash mounts. “Now is not the time to rush to judgment and immediately condemn our officers,” he said on Tuesday, before the department fired Chauvin and three other officers who did not intervene in Floyd’s death.
The Police Officers Federation of Minneapolis union became powerful in the 1970s, after one of its former leaders, Charles Stenvig, was elected mayor. Kroll became president of the union in 2015. Today, protesters and other activists in the city say the union, not the police chief, holds the most sway over officers and their behavior on patrol. “The only authority they respect is Police Federation President Bob Kroll,” Tana Hargest, a Minneapolis-based artist and activist, tweeted a day after Floyd’s death. “[T]here’s nothing our elected representatives can or will do to bring them to heel.”
- https://www.motherjones.com/crime-justice/2020/05/minneapolis-police-union-president-kroll-george-floyd-racism/
Because, in America, there's one crime that's on no law book, for which there is no punishment at statutory law or common-law, but which is enforced regularly and especially against anyone who's not "respectable" (ie not white, Christian, cis, straight, and well-off), and for which the sentence is all too often death: making a police officer think you might disrespect them.
Because, in America, there's one crime that's on no law book, for which there is no punishment at statutory law or common-law, but which is enforced regularly and especially against anyone who's not "respectable" (ie not white, Christian, cis, straight, and well-off), and for which the sentence is all too often death: making a police officer think you might disrespect them.
Or just, ya know, living while black.
To be clear, I'm not dismissing your overall idea out of hand, and I think it's something worth exploring regardless. I'm just saying it may not get the results you think it will, especially since there are reports of people deliberately inciting riots.
Again, we need to expose the names and identities of the men who participated in the charge to clear the way for Trump. Fascists do not have privacy.
It's shitty that despite how terrible he is his party still adores him.
It's shitty that despite how terrible he is his party still adores him.
Not despite. Because of. It's important to remember that he's not just one guy. The entire party is like this. They just hid it until recently.
All Republicans Are Bastards.
Just what the fuck has Donald Trump been doing? I mean I don't want him to get re elected at all but doesn't he realize this is an election year? Yet he continues to quadruple down on his strategy of appealing to maybe thirty five percent of the country. That might have worked in 2016 because A the electorate didn't know how Trump would govern, and B the electorate hated Hillary just as much, but in the most challenging year of his presidency with a global pandemic, a recession and riots and protests. He's been hands off, blames everyone else and even incites more violence. Instead of trying to unite a wounded country he continues to divide it even more. This strategy didn't work for him in 2018 and it's gotten worse. He either A thinks he's invincible, B doesn't believe what polls are telling him, C figures he has nothing to lose so he might as well take the country down with him.
One thing that appears to be missing from USA is proportional reaction.
A man gets choked to death after it is mistakenly believed that he faked a check and people go "he shouldn't have committed a crime."
Even if he had been guilty of that, is death really a reasonable punishment? And if so, wouldn't he deserve to go to court at least? And just how much violence can the police use against him when he wasn't actually resisting them?
Police have assaulted politicians, have taken down USA's flags and replaced them with their own, opened fire on unarmed people (now and previously over the decades numerous times) and assaulted members of media who hadn't violated any laws.
To be clear, I'm not dismissing your overall idea out of hand, and I think it's something worth exploring regardless. I'm just saying it may not get the results you think it will, especially since there are reports of people deliberately inciting riots.
Many of those are in uniform, wearing riot gear. Get those thugs under control and you will see an immediate decrease in violent conflict.
I hope you like the taste of boot polish.
One thing that appears to be missing from USA is proportional reaction.
A man gets choked to death after it is mistakenly believed that he faked a check and people go "he shouldn't have committed a crime."
Even if he had been guilty of that, is death really a reasonable punishment? And if so, wouldn't he deserve to go to court at least? And just how much violence can the police use against him when he wasn't actually resisting them?
Police have assaulted politicians, have taken down USA's flags and replaced them with their own, opened fire on unarmed people (now and previously over the decades numerous times) and assaulted members of media who hadn't violated any laws.
Thankfully, the cops who killed Floyd were condemned by virtually everyone aside from the Minneapolis police union. If there's any good to come out of his senseless death and the senseless violence that's followed, it's that we may finally see true police accountability nationwide... I hope.
Minor correction: it burst again. Let's not forget the 1992 LA riots. Its gonna keep bursting til shit gets fixed.
One thing that appears to be missing from USA is proportional reaction.
A man gets choked to death after it is mistakenly believed that he faked a check and people go "he shouldn't have committed a crime."
Even if he had been guilty of that, is death really a reasonable punishment? And if so, wouldn't he deserve to go to court at least? And just how much violence can the police use against him when he wasn't actually resisting them?
Police have assaulted politicians, have taken down USA's flags and replaced them with their own, opened fire on unarmed people (now and previously over the decades numerous times) and assaulted members of media who hadn't violated any laws.
Thankfully, the cops who killed Floyd were condemned by virtually everyone aside from the Minneapolis police union. If there's any good to come out of his senseless death and the senseless violence that's followed, it's that we may finally see true police accountability nationwide... I hope.
That's great. Now where was such near-unanimous condemnation of the cop who killed Tamir Rice? Or Eric Garner? Or Philando Castile? Or how about the civilian thug who killed Trayvon Martin?
It didn't matter how much condemnation there was against Floyd's killer, or whether he gets convicted or not. This has been building for centuries and the dam finally burst.
It's like he WANTS to lose the Race in November.
Ah, I got that part wrong. I thought Castile had revealed the gun. Nonetheless he did inform the officer of his gun, as the law required.
There's a case to be made that Castile died because he followed the law--knowing he had a gun may well have made the cop more nervous.
Just what the fuck has Donald Trump been doing? I mean I don't want him to get re elected at all but doesn't he realize this is an election year? Yet he continues to quadruple down on his strategy of appealing to maybe thirty five percent of the country. That might have worked in 2016 because A the electorate didn't know how Trump would govern, and B the electorate hated Hillary just as much, but in the most challenging year of his presidency with a global pandemic, a recession and riots and protests. He's been hands off, blames everyone else and even incites more violence. Instead of trying to unite a wounded country he continues to divide it even more. This strategy didn't work for him in 2018 and it's gotten worse. He either A thinks he's invincible, B doesn't believe what polls are telling him, C figures he has nothing to lose so he might as well take the country down with him.
And despite him tanking in the polls with just five months to go I still feel like he'll win.
The only way Trump can win is to make Biden look worse than him. Which he and the media are going to do a lot of the next five months.
So Trump is pissed that his first campaign rally in Tulsa Oklahoma pulled in a crowd much lower than the 100,000 expected. So much so that his spill over crowd speech stage had nobody in attendance so he had to cancel it. Trump is of course blaming the media and the protests that are thirty minutes away from the arena.
I hope that this is a sign that Trump's message is losing it's steam with voters and it's a sign that his reelection bid could be in danger. It could also be that people are taking covid 19 way more seriously than Trump wants them to.
And this somehow makes him look better?
I forced a bot to watch over 1,000 hours of Trump Coronavirus Press Conferences and then asked it to write its own Trump Coronavirus Press Conference. Here is the first page.
That's why the asshole shouldn't declare victory until all of the votes are counted. That's like equivalent to videos where you see somebody show boating at the end of a race only to get passed up right at the last second.
That's why the asshole shouldn't declare victory until all of the votes are counted. That's like equivalent to videos where you see somebody show boating at the end of a race only to get passed up right at the last second.
Well Donald Trump is a felon to the whole country.
Nah, he'll die of "natural causes." Ya know, kinda like how Epstein totally killed himself.
Of course, i also saw that she requested specifically for it to only happen after the election, with the next president. So this is directly against her own wishes too.
McConnell's seat is also super safe. Regardless of what Twitter roses think, there is literally no one that the Democrats could put against him that has any significant chance of beating him. Republican voters don't vote for candidates or policy, they vote against Democrats. And Kentucky has Republican voters to spare.
McConnell won't let it get to that point. He's going to give Trump a win before the election.
EDIT: Here's how he'll do it:
1. Trump nominates someone.
2. McConnell moves that the nominee be considered by the full Senate without a recommendation from the Judiciary Committee.
3. The Democrats filibuster the motion.
4. McConnell moves to change the rules of the Senate to end the filibuster on motions to advance to a vote on a nominee without a positive recommendation from a committee.
5. This vote passes.
6. Trump gets a third Supreme Court Justice.
He's been unpopular for years. You'll forgive me if I don't have much expectation of him losing.
Looks like Trump's probably got the plague. Best news I've heard since this whole nightmare started.
You'll excuse me as I offer my thoughts and prayers at this time
Ironbite-*collapses into a singularity of giggling*
Well, Repubs, this is what happens when you choose a candidate who thinks science and reason are Chinese hoaxes.
Yeah if Trump dies, both the Presidency and Nomination fall to Pence because that's who's on the ticket with the Orange Piss Pot. Cause that's how it works. No nonsense about getting a new candidate who isn't that well known to the people or anything like that.
Ironbite-and Pence doesn't win elections.
In Italy and in the world, whoever celebrates the illness of a man or of a woman, and who comes to wish the death of a neighbour, confirms what he is: An idiot without soul. A hug to Melania and Donald.
On one hand, it looks like he wants to lose the elections on purpose, on the other hand everything he has done since the start of his first campaign has looked like he could be sabotaging himself to not win the elections, so it is hard to be certain.
Trump is a Nurgle cultist.
Seriously though, I am still not certain whether he is intentionally trying to sabotage his campaign and infect people OR if he is simply so stupid and stubborn that he doesn't understand that what he is doing could actually harm others and is therefore shutting down anyone trying to explain the situation to him. I wouldn't be surprised if after 4 years his staff (the ones that still go to work) simply are too tired to try to reason with him and are just hoping to survive to the end of the year and go look for a new job then.
Trump is a Nurgle cultist.
Seriously though, I am still not certain whether he is intentionally trying to sabotage his campaign and infect people OR if he is simply so stupid and stubborn that he doesn't understand that what he is doing could actually harm others and is therefore shutting down anyone trying to explain the situation to him. I wouldn't be surprised if after 4 years his staff (the ones that still go to work) simply are too tired to try to reason with him and are just hoping to survive to the end of the year and go look for a new job then.
Democrats have a stronger chance to take the Senate in 2022 due to more Republicans being up for reelection than Democrats. The house is a different story.
Democrats have a stronger chance to take the Senate in 2022 due to more Republicans being up for reelection than Democrats. The house is a different story.
Didn't a lot of people think that this time, too, though?
And unless both Georgia seats flip, Republicans will still control the Senate, and Democrats will have more marginal seats to defend than they did this time around.
Democrats have a stronger chance to take the Senate in 2022 due to more Republicans being up for reelection than Democrats. The house is a different story.
Didn't a lot of people think that this time, too, though?
And unless both Georgia seats flip, Republicans will still control the Senate, and Democrats will have more marginal seats to defend than they did this time around.
I am really hoping that we will get the two Georgia Democrats in the runoff. I would like to see a Democratic majority in the Senate, we can start to get things done that we haven't been able to in the past 4 years. Glad that Social Security is safe for now for one thing.
Trump's supporters are fuming over the results. Michael Brietenbach attended a protest in Philadelphia on Friday, insisting the vote count was being conducted unfairly.
"We will drag this fight on until our president concedes," he said.
"When our president concedes, his people will concede. Because that's how we are. We follow him. And that's what it is."
She was running unopposed.
Its a problem Democrats have. If they feel they can't win in certain areas, they just don't waste the money. It's a pragmatic view of things and one that anyone can take but I feel that seat was up for grabs.
Ironbite-and as the saying goes, you miss 100% of the shots you don't take.
A lot of people withItalianRussian accents and some very capable hitmen.
A lot of people withItalianRussian accents and some very capable hitmen.
Fixed that for you.
I dont think its realistic to expect Trump to successfully steal the election at this point. But he is going to make as incredibly painful as he can.He's just fishing for an exit plan. Guy's a con artist and it's not the first time the con's gone sour. It's not like he wouldn't WANT to steal the election, if he could pull off a Fuhrer Donny he'd go for it in a heartbeat but he hasn't got the backup or the smarts. He just wants to bolt as far away from his incoming legal troubles as he can.
Wouldn't be surprised if he's got a nice, long flight planned to a non-extradition country. Hopefully, one that he didn't piss off and would subsequently just shoot him on arrival and huck him in a hole, somewhere.
Fuck, who am I kidding? The slow-witted cunt probably thinks he can just barricade himself inside Trump Tower. After all, it means moving less.
Wouldn't be surprised if he's got a nice, long flight planned to a non-extradition country. Hopefully, one that he didn't piss off and would subsequently just shoot him on arrival and huck him in a hole, somewhere.
Fuck, who am I kidding? The slow-witted cunt probably thinks he can just barricade himself inside Trump Tower. After all, it means moving less.
Fuck, who am I kidding? The slow-witted cunt probably thinks he can just barricade himself inside Trump Tower. After all, it means moving less.
No US President ever faces consequences for what they did as President. Ford pardoned Nixon. Further, as Chomsky pointed out, every US President from Truman through Bush Sr. is a war criminal, and every one from Clinton since is also.
No US President ever faces consequences for what they did as President. Ford pardoned Nixon. Further, as Chomsky pointed out, every US President from Truman through Bush Sr. is a war criminal, and every one from Clinton since is also.
No US President ever faces consequences for what they did as President. Ford pardoned Nixon. Further, as Chomsky pointed out, every US President from Truman through Bush Sr. is a war criminal, and every one from Clinton since is also.
Yes, but war crimes from a sitting president are a dignified tradition, tax evasion is just tacky.
I would rather it not come down to President Pelosi, but that would have a silver lining of causing the mother of all Trump meltdowns.
I fully expect that the Republicans will relent as soon as they see no more gain from denying it. But of course we have a lot of Twitter panic that Trump will be able to pull off a military coup based on his actions with the Pentagon last week. Not saying that we shouldn't be taking that seriously, because we very much should be, but a military coup would require cooperation from, well, the military. And unless I am EXTREMELY mistaken, military leadership won't let the military get involved in a domestic political dispute.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/georgia-recount-election-1.5807799
Every life lost due to COVID in the US for some time after Joe Biden takes office will be blood on Donald Trump's hands.
I wonder if the recount of the recount will get appealed, and Trump will angrily order a recount from there.
He's just gonna keep ordering recounts until he somehow wins Georgia.
Why do they think she might cost them the Senate? Her allegations about Kemp and Raffensberger being in league with Biden?
Trump won because he was highly successful in speaking to disenfranchised rural blue collared voters who have been largely feeling ignored for a long time. Their jobs have been disappearing for a long time and what once was large booming towns filled with steel mills, or mines, or manufacturing plants are slowly turning to ghost towns filled with meth dens and crumbling infrastructure. Trump spoke out against NAFTA and TPP which a large population of middle america hate and blame for jobs going over seas. Truth is these jobs have been starting to leave way before NAFTA became a thing. Trump and Clinton were already both highly disliked candidates. What hurt Clinton was that the same people who came out for Obama didn't come out for Clinton this time. Southern blacks and younger voters didn't feel energized by Clinton's more moderate democrat stance. Blacks didn't feel they were helped out much from eight years with Obama, so why would they turn out for someone who doesn't understand them. Younger voters are growing more progressive and Clinton just seemed more status quo.
Trump was able to excite a large group of voters that were previously ignored, and they came out in droves to vote for him. Not all of them are racists, not all of them hate foreigners, but some feel he can bring their jobs back and they were willing to over look the dangerous borderline racists, sexist shit Trump has said in the past.
The truth is Trump is not going to bring the jobs back, and any jobs he tries to force to stay here will be costly. Wall street big wigs will fight him on that. He can try to impose tariffs on businesses importing goods into the US that manufactured in foreign countries, but that will just end up hurting the consumer with higher prices in an already stagnated economy with stagnated wages. Republicans want to impose tax cuts on the extremely wealthy again which is just going to hurt the middle class even more. He's not going to be able to build a wall. Republicans hate spending on infrastructure and they certainly are not going to spend billions on a pipe dream that will most likely take way past Trumps four years in office to even start development, and no Mexico is not going to pay for it. The same will happen on deportation.
Every candidate makes promises or goals that they want to accomplish that will never pass, like Obama and Gitmo. The problem is Trump spoke of grandious promises that will most likely never come to fruition. A lot of voters will most likely see this and not turn out to vote next time.
WITH PREJUDICED!
Ironbite-that's cold man.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/biden-transition-can-begin-gsa-1.5813414
Looks like someone got in Trump's ear and convinced him that if he didn't let Emily Murphy sign off on starting the transition, he'd get raked over the coals for months to come.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/biden-transition-can-begin-gsa-1.5813414
Looks like someone got in Trump's ear and convinced him that if he didn't let Emily Murphy sign off on starting the transition, he'd get raked over the coals for months to come.
Well that's the story now. Before he tweeted out that he was graciouslly allowing the transition to start, Ms. Murphy came out and said she had independently came to the conclusion that the transition needed to start now. Not, you know, when Biden was the clear winner or anything.
Ironbite-with one tweet, Trump made Emily Murphy his bitch and threw her under the bus. I love it.
Yeah but that was also off of the heels of a MAAAAAAAAAAAAAASIVE voter purge done by now Governor Kemp. Stacy Abrams and co have been doing some massive registration of folks and are really enthusiastic about this vote. In fact, one of the Democratic candidates is ahead of their opponent in polls right now.
Ironbite-so have some hope.
While Republicans and Trump's re-election team have been unable to prove claims of widespread election fraud, with 51 of 52 such cases being dismissed or withdrawn from court due to lack of evidence, Brooks' challenge would be a last-ditch effort to at least symbolically protest the election of President-elect Joe Biden while also pledging loyalty to Trump and avoiding the wrath of his supporters.
QuoteWhile Republicans and Trump's re-election team have been unable to prove claims of widespread election fraud, with 51 of 52 such cases being dismissed or withdrawn from court due to lack of evidence, Brooks' challenge would be a last-ditch effort to at least symbolically protest the election of President-elect Joe Biden while also pledging loyalty to Trump and avoiding the wrath of his supporters.
I think this paragraph sums it all up.
Ironbite-anyone who supports this shouldn't be sat in Congress.
I don't think Milo has to do anything to get his "revenge", the republicans are quite busy at work to destroy themselves the more wacky and out of touch they become.
So Trump is apparently thinking about declaring martial law in swing states and have the military redo the election. As being suggested by Worm tongue. I mean Sydney Powell. You know basically committing what might be treason against state governments.
Remember the Jade Helm controversy?
Weird how the same people who were freaking out in fear of Obama declarin martial law and taking over the country (from himself?) are now really, really quiet at the prospect of Trump using the military to stay in power.
Well good news is that the democrats took the senate.
A woman who helped storm the capitol was killed (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/06/us/politics/woman-shot-capitol-dead.html).
(https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/90fb5fc26486d9abdfb1ca0ec1d259c4d1f480a55eadf0a26ace7386ed043fcd.png)
(https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/49049eefa1fb44819e196f2cbe51b354382e3fc928d93832385d5e2417e366c4.jpg?w=600&h=392)
Didn't you know? That was ANTIFA storming the Capitol Building yesterday, to make Donald Trump and his supporters look really bad! Ignore that a bunch of them have been identified (and yep, tons of white supremacists), Fox News and Matt "Florida Man" Gaetz says it was ANTIFA dammit, so it was! /s
It's no less stupid than claiming the antifa and BLM rioters last year were "actually" alt-right. Remember that?
This happened partly because of establishment and leftist types normalizing violence and undermining confidence in the electoral process.
You wanna crow about how your rioting is getting positive results? Don't be surprised if other people try it.
You wanna scream "all cops are bastards"? Don't be surprised if other people turn on law enforcement.
And if you want to insist Trump couldn't have won without foreign interference... well, don't be surprised if people insist Biden couldn't have won without fraud.
What I'm trying to do
Didn't you know? That was ANTIFA storming the Capitol Building yesterday, to make Donald Trump and his supporters look really bad! Ignore that a bunch of them have been identified (and yep, tons of white supremacists), Fox News and Matt "Florida Man" Gaetz says it was ANTIFA dammit, so it was! /s
It's no less stupid than claiming the antifa and BLM rioters last year were "actually" alt-right. Remember that?
This happened partly because of establishment and leftist types normalizing violence and undermining confidence in the electoral process. You wanna crow about how your rioting is getting positive results? Don't be surprised if other people try it. You wanna scream "all cops are bastards"? Don't be surprised if other people turn on law enforcement. And if you want to insist Trump couldn't have won without foreign interference... well, don't be surprised if people insist Biden couldn't have won without fraud.
Like it or not, actions have consequences. This is the chickens coming home to roost. Am I trying to justify what happened? No. What I'm trying to do is explain that when you try to normalize a tactic or an idea, it will inevitably be used against you. Pro-slavery politicians justified their stances based on states' rights, then started whining when Northern states passed personal liberty laws to prevent the return of runaway slaves in defiance of the Fugitive Slave Act. Trotsky endorsed violence and terror against political dissidents, then bitched and moaned when Stalin persecuted his followers. Nazi Germany committed terror bombing against Polish and British cities, then cried foul when the Allies did the same thing to Germany in retaliation. Things like this have happened over and over again. And they'll probably keep happening for as long as humanity exists.
This happened partly because of establishment and leftist types normalizing violence and undermining confidence in the electoral process.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-concedes-1.5865609
Trump has finally conceded the election, and called the attack on the US Capitol--an attack he encouraged--"heinous" and claimed it left him "outraged by the violence, lawlessness and mayhem".
Also, the riot has now claimed five lives, including one member of the Capitol Police.
Over/under on how many days until Trump flips on this?
Didn't you know? That was ANTIFA storming the Capitol Building yesterday, to make Donald Trump and his supporters look really bad! Ignore that a bunch of them have been identified (and yep, tons of white supremacists), Fox News and Matt "Florida Man" Gaetz says it was ANTIFA dammit, so it was! /s
It's no less stupid than claiming the antifa and BLM rioters last year were "actually" alt-right. Remember that?
This happened partly because of establishment and leftist types normalizing violence and undermining confidence in the electoral process. You wanna crow about how your rioting is getting positive results? Don't be surprised if other people try it. You wanna scream "all cops are bastards"? Don't be surprised if other people turn on law enforcement. And if you want to insist Trump couldn't have won without foreign interference... well, don't be surprised if people insist Biden couldn't have won without fraud.
Like it or not, actions have consequences. This is the chickens coming home to roost. Am I trying to justify what happened? No. What I'm trying to do is explain that when you try to normalize a tactic or an idea, it will inevitably be used against you. Pro-slavery politicians justified their stances based on states' rights, then started whining when Northern states passed personal liberty laws to prevent the return of runaway slaves in defiance of the Fugitive Slave Act. Trotsky endorsed violence and terror against political dissidents, then bitched and moaned when Stalin persecuted his followers. Nazi Germany committed terror bombing against Polish and British cities, then cried foul when the Allies did the same thing to Germany in retaliation. Things like this have happened over and over again. And they'll probably keep happening for as long as humanity exists.
QuoteIt's no less stupid than claiming the antifa and BLM rioters last year were "actually" alt-right. Remember that?
Except there has been evidence and charges brought to right wing extremists and accelerationists who instigated some of the violence to undermine the protests. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/06/22/who-caused-violence-protests-its-not-antifa/QuoteThis happened partly because of establishment and leftist types normalizing violence and undermining confidence in the electoral process.
What the fuck are you talking about? The only person I see normalizing violence and undermining the confidence in the electoral process is Trump, and it's been Trump since the beginning.QuoteYou wanna crow about how your rioting is getting positive results? Don't be surprised if other people try it.
So you're comparing the riots spurred on by the police against peaceful protestors who want police to stop being violent to rioters committing sedition against their own government and trying to stop the electoral process and the peaceful transfer of power?QuoteYou wanna scream "all cops are bastards"? Don't be surprised if other people turn on law enforcement.
They are bastards. I don't know why the right is surprised when they turn against them as well.QuoteAnd if you want to insist Trump couldn't have won without foreign interference... well, don't be surprised if people insist Biden couldn't have won without fraud.
It's true people were saying that yet the peaceful transfer of power happened and liberals accepted Trumps legitimate win in 2016 even with or without foreign interference. What I would have liked to have seen is the right do the fucking same instead of being sore loser cry babies.QuoteWhat I'm trying to do
What I would like you to try and do is kindly fuck off.
This happened partly because of establishment and leftist types normalizing violence and undermining confidence in the electoral process.
I love how right wingers are all about personal responsibility right up until the moment someone catches them with their hand in the cookie jar, or in this case the seat of American government then it's all "the left made me do it."
It's gonna be briefly confusing for them to settle on a new shared delusion while some are saying antifa inspired it, others are saying they literally are antifa, bussed in by George Soros and still others that they wouldn't act "like antifa" if you hadn't hurt their feelings by calling them racists and sexists in the first place.
I guess Vanto's on task, top equivocating and bullshitting there chap. There could get you a job on OANN with an "Ashli Babbit martyr" pin, "Q" cufflinks and an "all lives matter" T shirt.
He's a Dave Rubinoid.
"I am the only true, HONEST Left or Centrist and everyone else is a terrible evil double plus bad WOKE cultist!! It just so happens I always invite conservatives on my show and never once call them out on their bullshit!"
He's full of just as much repugnant bullshit as Dave Rubin.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-concedes-1.5865609
Trump has finally conceded the election, and called the attack on the US Capitol--an attack he encouraged--"heinous" and claimed it left him "outraged by the violence, lawlessness and mayhem".
Also, the riot has now claimed five lives, including one member of the Capitol Police.
Over/under on how many days until Trump flips on this?
Ah yes. The right wing did something heinous so it's time for someone to come out of the woodwork screeching "BUT WHAT ABOUT THE LEEEEFT!!?!?!"
Fuck off. This is the fault of the Trump terrorists and Trump, and them alone. Your whataboutisms have no power here.
I think Trump made his U-turn as a last-gasp effort to try to keep 34 Republicans onside if the House passes articles of impeachment.
You don't mess around when votes went 93-6 and 92-7 against you.
But I put the over/under at 13.5 days: even money on whether Trump flips before he leaves office, or after.
BTW here's a really good piece about how the gamergate movement led to the rise of trumpian fascism (it wasn't the only factor but it was a major one) And what lessons we need to learn from it.
Give it a read Vanto
https://www.vox.com/culture/2020/1/20/20808875/gamergate-lessons-cultural-impact-changes-harassment-laws
Question about personal responsibility. You'd condemn these people even if those tinfoilers are correct and agent provocateurs really did get the ball rolling, right? That's what I'd do. After all, even if antifa started it, they could've chosen not to do the same.
Is it really that hard for you people to disagree without being hostile about it? Say what you will about dpareja, at least he can read my posts without flying off the handle.
I think Trump made his U-turn as a last-gasp effort to try to keep 34 Republicans onside if the House passes articles of impeachment.
You don't mess around when votes went 93-6 and 92-7 against you.
But I put the over/under at 13.5 days: even money on whether Trump flips before he leaves office, or after.
Actually, looking at the speech, does he even use the word "concession" once? Does he ever refer to the administration by name instead of just saying "new administration"? And he concludes the speech by saying "our incredible journey is only just beginning". I have a feeling this isn't actually a concession speech, this is a promise to continue trying to overturn the results DISGUISED as a concession speech.
1. I know. The problem is the idea that they were the only ones doing it.
2. Don't gaslight me. I have articles saying 2016 was stolen and defending the riots. You gonna call or fold?
3. No, I'm comparing rioters storming into Congress to rioters trying to burn down the Portland mayor's condo (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/portland-protests-police-riot-mayors-home-black-lives-matter-ted-wheeler-a9698246.html).
Trump, claiming he was “outraged by the violence, lawlessness and mayhem” of the Capitol siege that he incited, said those who “broke the law will pay” in a move perhaps designed more to protect himself from mounting legal and political hazard than reflecting a newfound sense of contrition and integrity.
This promoted an outpouring of anger and grief and denial from his hardline acolytes. “A punch in the gut,” said one. “A stab in the back” another railed. From a third: “I feel like puking.” (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/08/trump-incites-anger-among-acolytes-let-down-by-lack-of-support)
Didn't you know? That was ANTIFA storming the Capitol Building yesterday, to make Donald Trump and his supporters look really bad! Ignore that a bunch of them have been identified (and yep, tons of white supremacists), Fox News and Matt "Florida Man" Gaetz says it was ANTIFA dammit, so it was! /s
It's no less stupid than claiming the antifa and BLM rioters last year were "actually" alt-right. Remember that?
This happened partly because of establishment and leftist types normalizing violence and undermining confidence in the electoral process. You wanna crow about how your rioting is getting positive results? Don't be surprised if other people try it. You wanna scream "all cops are bastards"? Don't be surprised if other people turn on law enforcement. And if you want to insist Trump couldn't have won without foreign interference... well, don't be surprised if people insist Biden couldn't have won without fraud.
Like it or not, actions have consequences. This is the chickens coming home to roost. Am I trying to justify what happened? No. What I'm trying to do is explain that when you try to normalize a tactic or an idea, it will inevitably be used against you. Pro-slavery politicians justified their stances based on states' rights, then started whining when Northern states passed personal liberty laws to prevent the return of runaway slaves in defiance of the Fugitive Slave Act. Trotsky endorsed violence and terror against political dissidents, then bitched and moaned when Stalin persecuted his followers. Nazi Germany committed terror bombing against Polish and British cities, then cried foul when the Allies did the same thing to Germany in retaliation. Things like this have happened over and over again. And they'll probably keep happening for as long as humanity exists.
BLM protests were mainly peaceful and remind me how many people were killed or if these people were chanting for death to their enemies?
This "protest" at the capitol happened after ages of right-wing talking heads promoting it and telling people to take grab their guns and riot if Trump loses. Before it happened Trump was at a rally telling people to march to capitol and that he would be right there with them. Heck, there was at least one elected and newly sworn in politician proudly taking part in the charge. There is a world of difference in the rhetorics of BLM protests and this latest protest. These people were screaming for a civil war.
That they now try to both claim it was an ANTIFA false flag operation and meant to be peaceful AND at the same time claiming the dead are martyrs to the cause is hypocritical. Heck, the dude in the buffalo costume was branded an ANTIFA member but he himself came out saying that he's a Qanon believer (which actually has been well documented. He was a known figure, not some random person who just popped up for this riot.)
And the people who accused Trump of collusion with Russia were holding peaceful protests, no deaths there. Heck, the Russia investigation did uncover a bunch of crimes and the only reason the precident wasn't charged with crimes was because he is the president and he would have had to be removed from office first. Mueller said so himself. Meanwhile none of the 50+ court cases from the latest election led to anything. The usual proceeding was "lawyers rant about evidence of wrongdoings at press meetings, but when in court and under oath, they admit that they have no evidence and are not suggesting that anything illegal happened." If you are going to accuse someone of the violence that happened at DC, it would have to be the Republican politicians like Trump or Ted Cruz who have been pouring gasoline all over the country for years and handing out matches to anyone who looked unstable. And note how there was no national guard keeping the peace at DC. Trump refused to let them be called in. That's like taking out all the fire extinguishers and then acting surprised that your firebomb was so devastating.
As it is, Vanto's "but whatabout the leeeeft" rant is pitiful last attempt to save face after their own buddies shot themselves in the foot repeatedly. Just another example of people who can not live knowing that not only is something their own damn fault, but that other people can also see it clearly.
EDIT: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election-2020/republican-lawmakers-rioters-capitol-photos-b1784170.html?fbclid=IwAR2QDAiRZSNdIrPzf6FUWp2eV-pdnnKmHrs4UmYw5tyaIJfYiZHq9WLFPkQ
Question about personal responsibility. You'd condemn these people even if those tinfoilers are correct and agent provocateurs really did get the ball rolling, right? That's what I'd do. After all, even if antifa started it, they could've chosen not to do the same.
Honestly mate if the tinfoilers were correct I wouldn't worry at all about personal responsibility at all because, y'know-tinfoil. It'd be obvious that any happening involving "people" would be due to adrenochrome-powered mind control rays aimed by the space lizard/Democrat/Jew/antifa/commie/free space here.
That's what the foil is for. Obviously!
You know what? I'm fucking done with you, don't bother responding to this.
Also:
(https://i1.wp.com/leftycartoons.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/23/2019/09/both-sides-are-equally-bad.png)
Didn't you know? That was ANTIFA storming the Capitol Building yesterday, to make Donald Trump and his supporters look really bad! Ignore that a bunch of them have been identified (and yep, tons of white supremacists), Fox News and Matt "Florida Man" Gaetz says it was ANTIFA dammit, so it was! /s
It's no less stupid than claiming the antifa and BLM rioters last year were "actually" alt-right. Remember that?
This happened partly because of establishment and leftist types normalizing violence and undermining confidence in the electoral process. You wanna crow about how your rioting is getting positive results? Don't be surprised if other people try it. You wanna scream "all cops are bastards"? Don't be surprised if other people turn on law enforcement. And if you want to insist Trump couldn't have won without foreign interference... well, don't be surprised if people insist Biden couldn't have won without fraud.
Like it or not, actions have consequences. This is the chickens coming home to roost. Am I trying to justify what happened? No. What I'm trying to do is explain that when you try to normalize a tactic or an idea, it will inevitably be used against you. Pro-slavery politicians justified their stances based on states' rights, then started whining when Northern states passed personal liberty laws to prevent the return of runaway slaves in defiance of the Fugitive Slave Act. Trotsky endorsed violence and terror against political dissidents, then bitched and moaned when Stalin persecuted his followers. Nazi Germany committed terror bombing against Polish and British cities, then cried foul when the Allies did the same thing to Germany in retaliation. Things like this have happened over and over again. And they'll probably keep happening for as long as humanity exists.
https://youtu.be/ICZ06gYpu6w?t=16
Question about personal responsibility. You'd condemn these people even if those tinfoilers are correct and agent provocateurs really did get the ball rolling, right? That's what I'd do. After all, even if antifa started it, they could've chosen not to do the same.
Honestly mate if the tinfoilers were correct I wouldn't worry at all about personal responsibility at all because, y'know-tinfoil. It'd be obvious that any happening involving "people" would be due to adrenochrome-powered mind control rays aimed by the space lizard/Democrat/Jew/antifa/commie/free space here.
That's what the foil is for. Obviously!
Why don't you stop the non sequitur and answer the question? It's a simple yes or no question.
(He will also not be attending Biden's inauguration, the first President not to attend his successor's inauguration since Andrew Johnson did not attend that of Ulysses S. Grant.)
Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump
(He will also not be attending Biden's inauguration, the first President not to attend his successor's inauguration since Andrew Johnson did not attend that of Ulysses S. Grant.)
Wait, is this his first admission that there will be a Biden inauguration?
https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension.htmlQuotePermanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump
Not too surprising, really.
So he's just like T....wait. Could Vanto/Paragon/Reverse be Trump? Could we have been fighting the President of the United States all this time?I like it but there's not enough adjectives, y'know, huge, beautiful, bigly. Also Trump repeats himself every few seconds due to cognitive decline.
Ironbite-my god...*whips glasses off*
The legacy of the Trump administration is going to be that the president sparked an insurrection and people died because he tried his best to not abide by the Constitution and the tradition of a peaceful transition of power that’s been the norm since our founding. Nothing else is even going to be a side note.
Looks like his fanboys want a sequel (https://twitter.com/BeTrueVoteBlue1/status/1347390865296207872).
Oh, real mature. What are you, five?
Good thing then the rest of this won't be in the hands of the police. National Guard is gonna be handling things. And they're not gonna be giving an easy ride to Trumpsters.
Good thing then the rest of this won't be in the hands of the police. National Guard is gonna be handling things. And they're not gonna be giving an easy ride to Trumpsters.
Has anyone checked to see how many National Guard members are sympathetic to Trump supporters and might be taking selfies with them?
Looks like his fanboys want a sequel (https://twitter.com/BeTrueVoteBlue1/status/1347390865296207872).
Looks like his fanboys want a sequel (https://twitter.com/BeTrueVoteBlue1/status/1347390865296207872).
I'm worried about what they might do. Biden and Harris will be in the capital that day. I think the inauguration will be virtual due to covid. The police just let protesters storm into the capital building before. I can see it happening again. Or will they storm the white house?
( [...] the first President not to attend his successor's inauguration since Andrew Johnson did not attend that of Ulysses S. Grant.)
( [...] the first President not to attend his successor's inauguration since Andrew Johnson did not attend that of Ulysses S. Grant.)
Technically, you could argue that the most recent inauguration without the previous president was that of Johnson.
...aides hope he will spend his last days trying to trumpet his policy accomplishments, beginning with a trip to Alamo, Texas, on Tuesday to highlight his administration's efforts to curb illegal immigration and border wall construction (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-remains-defiant-amid-calls-to-resign-trump-presidency-party-mission-capitol-b1785249.html)
Jason Miller, a close adviser, noted that Trump's popularity rose after his first impeachment trial. And he argued that, if they moved forward, Democrats risk turning public sentiment against them and impeding Biden's agenda by continuing to focus on Trump even after he has left the White House.
“As I said to the president this morning, never discount national Democrats' ability to galvanize the Republican base behind you," said Miller, arguing that, if “national Democrats were to go down that path, I think it would boomerang on them very severely.” “Joe Biden doesn't want to spend the first 100 days of his presidency having to own a vindictive and overreaching impeachment trial," he added. (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-remains-defiant-amid-calls-to-resign-trump-presidency-party-mission-capitol-b1785249.html)
So here's a thought:
The swing from Obama's victory over McCain in Massachusetts in 2008, to Scott Brown's victory over Martha Coakley in the 2010 special Senate election (to fill the vacancy left by the death of Edward Kennedy) was 30.57 percentage points.
A similar swing in California to fill the vacancy left by the resignation of Kamala Harris to assume the vice-presidency would see the Republican candidate (if one makes it to the general in California's top-two jungle primary system) win by around 1.4 percentage points.
So here's a thought:
The swing from Obama's victory over McCain in Massachusetts in 2008, to Scott Brown's victory over Martha Coakley in the 2010 special Senate election (to fill the vacancy left by the death of Edward Kennedy) was 30.57 percentage points.
A similar swing in California to fill the vacancy left by the resignation of Kamala Harris to assume the vice-presidency would see the Republican candidate (if one makes it to the general in California's top-two jungle primary system) win by around 1.4 percentage points.
You're making the mistaking of thinking that the voting demographics in California follow those of Maine and Mass.
Ironbnite-they don't.
Vote to impeach. Conviction happens in the Senate.
beer gut putsch
I think all those "Biden has dementia" posts were more projection