TTLG|Thief|Bioshock|System Shock|Deus Ex|Mobile

View Poll Results: How long will Trump be President?

Voters
144. You may not vote on this poll
  • 1 Term (4 Years)

    26 18.06%
  • 2 Terms (8 Years)

    51 35.42%
  • 1st Term Impeachment/Assassination

    50 34.72%
  • 2nd Term Impeachment/Assassination

    4 2.78%
  • I don't know what's going on!

    13 9.03%

Thread: ✮✮✮ !Trump Dump! ✮✮✮

  1. #12551
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Quote Originally Posted by jkcerda View Post
    who puts cribs in front of crowds of people in the first place? damn kid deserved it for having shitty parents.
    They were all there for one of those weird toddler talent shows those Millennial helicopter parents love so much, then Ken came in and just straight up murdered the little dude! It was terrible!

  2. #12552
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Location: Canuckistan GWN
    But you watched anyway. Didn't you.

  3. #12553
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Starr's a lawyer. I wanted to see if he'd eat the baby too.

  4. #12554
    BANNED
    Registered: Nov 2016
    Location: Trollinus Maximus
    remember to put left overs in nice tight sealed containers, no one likes spoiled children.......
    (Meme removed)

  5. #12555
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Land of the crazy
    Well, the defense has finished making its case that the sky is actually green.

    Now we can get back to arguing for/against witnesses who will add nothing to the story that we don't already know. Yes, John Bolton could stand up in front of the Senate and say the sky is blue. But hearing one more person restate what we already know isn't going to affect any votes. Republicans will still say the sky is green and then throw Bolton overboard for being a lying bastard traitor.

    It really doesn't matter how strong the House managers case is or could be. Everybody's mind is made up and the Republicans (the vast majority anyway) already sold their soul to Donald Trump. I guess the only thing that matters is being in power.

    But on the positive side, it's only two weeks till the NH primary.

  6. #12556
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Quote Originally Posted by heywood View Post
    Now we can get back to arguing for/against witnesses who will add nothing to the story that we don't already know. Yes, John Bolton could stand up in front of the Senate and say the sky is blue. But hearing one more person restate what we already know isn't going to affect any votes. Republicans will still say the sky is green and then throw Bolton overboard for being a lying bastard traitor.
    See, the whole point of this impeachment trial isn't to determine Trump's innocence or guilt, it's to see who comes out looking the worst once everything is said and done, and he's inevitably been exonerated. For the most part, Democrats and Republicans have already made up their minds on the issue, have made up their minds since before the house investigation, and God himself probably wouldn't be able to change anyone's opinion without forcing the point through direct divine intervention.

    This isn't for them. This is a trial for the ever swaying independents. They're the ones who will ultimately determine Trump's fate in the White House.

  7. #12557
    BANNED
    Registered: Nov 2016
    Location: Trollinus Maximus
    this is Murika. shit is forgotten after 2 weeks when the next scandal breaks.

  8. #12558
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Butter emails tho.

  9. #12559
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Land of the crazy
    I doubt there are enough undecided independents left to make any difference to anybody. I think it would be hard to find a registered & likely voter who hasn't made up their mind on Trump already. I certainly haven't met one, and I live in a swing state.

    Most independents are partisan anyway. In states where registered independents can vote in either primary, there is an incentive not to affiliate. In states that won't allow independents to vote in the primaries, there are still good reasons not to register a party affiliation. One reason is that you're pissed off at both parties - you may habitually vote Democrat or Republican, but you do it on a lesser of two evils basis, and you're not comfortable declaring your party allegiance on a public record. Another reason is that you don't want to be bombarded with a constant barrage of fundraising spam, cold calls, and unwanted knocks on the door at dinner time every other year.

    But so polarizing is the Trump administration that nobody is really neutral. The Republicans know this, and their election strategy is all about circling the wagons and rallying the base. A lot of Democrats haven't figured it out yet. They're still chasing these mythical independent unicorns at risk of alienating some of their own base. Just like in 2016.

  10. #12560
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    I don't know... are all these people who voted for Obama and switched their vote now hardcore Lord Dampnut fans? Or how about these Bernie voters who switched to Lord Dampnut in numbers big enough to swing the vote in his favour? Are they beyond any reach now?

  11. #12561
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by heywood View Post
    But hearing one more person restate what we already know isn't going to affect any votes.
    As far as I'm concerned, the truth needs to be restated and reiterated again and again until enough people get it that those who still don't can go hang out with the flat earthers. Republicans are simultaneously claiming that there's no direct witness testimony that Trump personally ordered the withholding and that precisely that testimony wouldn't be telling anyone anything new.

  12. #12562
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Quote Originally Posted by Starker View Post
    I don't know... are all these people who voted for Obama and switched their vote now hardcore Lord Dampnut fans? Or how about these Bernie voters who switched to Lord Dampnut in numbers big enough to swing the vote in his favour? Are they beyond any reach now?
    I can almost understand why some of the previous Obama voters would have sided with Trump during the '16 election. I don't expect everyone to be as well versed in politics as your average pundit, and can see how from a casual observers perspective, that election did seem like it came down a devil you know vs. a devil you don't choice. Some people clung to the idea he'd become "more presidential" after the election until it became an obvious denial of reality.

    But Bernie fans? Given their grievances, the very reasons why they're so hardcore about Bernie in the first place, it doesn't make a GODDAMN bit of sense for them to vote for Trump. Yeah, the DNC did give Bernie the short end of the stick, but voting Trump in protest only succeeded in cutting their own noses off to spite Hillary's face.

    ...though to consider the mitigating factors, I generally do consider most Bernie fans to be about as crazy as your average Trump fanatic. The only difference is they care about, you know, the Earth, equal wages and stuff, instead of conserving White Culture from the Open Border Loving Mexihorde Invaders.

    And there is the fact that Trump did a bit to appeal to the more left leaning folk during the election. Everyone remembers him talking about the wall. No one seems to remember him also talking about regulating Wall Street, and higher taxes for the wealthy. Hell, I remember the Trump fans using those very talking points as proof that The Leftist don't like Trump for entirely irrational reasons, cuz HE'S ON YOUR SIDE TOO!

    Anyway, what was my point? Oh, yeah. We're all fucking stupid.
    Last edited by Renzatic; 28th Jan 2020 at 23:05.

  13. #12563
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Location: Canuckistan GWN
    It is important for the testimony of witnesses to be read into the Senate records, especially if the GOP vote to exonerate Trump.



    On a side note, who would you rather have for president?

    Vlad?




    Or Vlod?





    The Internal Committee On Correct Thinking will be by shortly, to collect your responses. That is all, Citizens.
    Last edited by Nicker; 28th Jan 2020 at 23:30.

  14. #12564
    Member
    Registered: Feb 2002
    Location: In the flesh.
    Do you even have to ask?

  15. #12565
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
    But Bernie fans? Given their grievances, the very reasons why they're so hardcore about Bernie in the first place, it doesn't make a GODDAMN bit of sense for them to vote for Trump. Yeah, the DNC did give Bernie the short end of the stick, but voting Trump in protest only succeeded in cutting their own noses off to spite Hillary's face.
    Good old economic anxiety, perhaps:

    https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...p-voters-study

    [...]
    The thing that really stood out to me is that a lot of these people who voted for Sanders — and then Trump — don't look like modern day Democrats. So you saw a lot fewer of them actually identify as Democrats than your normal Sanders voter; and, even more striking, they seem to have views on racial issues that are far more conservative than your typical Democrat.

    [...]

    But given Democrats’ interest in winning back the Rust Belt, it’s worth digging into exactly who this population of voters is. Schaffner found some demographic characteristics that might align with what you’d expect — Bernie-Trump voters were older and whiter than the average Democratic primary voter, for instance.

    Perhaps surprisingly, however, these defectors did not turn out to have views on trade policy that marked them as significantly more opposed to free trade than the average Democrat. That may fly against the expectation that Sanders’ views on trade were unique to his appeal, but some political scientists were making that case as early as April 2016.

    Also of note: the Bernie-Trump voter also proved much more likely to consider himself or herself “somewhat conservative” or “very conservative” than the average Democrat. Sanders, of course, ran on a policy platform well to Clinton’s left — but was able to do so in a way that allowed him to win over voters that disdain the “liberal” label.
    [...]
    Quote Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
    ...though to consider the mitigating factors, I generally do consider most Bernie fans to be about as crazy as your average Trump fanatic. The only difference is they care about, you know, the Earth, equal wages and stuff, instead of conserving White Culture from the Open Border Loving Mexihorde Invaders.
    I don't know about most. The hardcore fans certainly. And Bernie has been able to widen his appeal a bit this time around, especially with hispanic voters.

    For the sheer craziness, though, it would be interesting to see him and Lord Dampnut square off. You bet the Republican opposition research binders are full to the brim and they'll be scaremongering the hell out of voters with "Bernie coming take away your health care and replace it with socialised government health care and raising your taxes to do it".

  16. #12566
    Moderator
    Registered: Apr 2003
    Location: Wales
    Quote Originally Posted by heywood View Post
    In states that won't allow independents to vote in the primaries, there are still good reasons not to register a party affiliation
    I don't understand this at all. Are you saying that voters have to be registered Democrat or Republican to vote? That you have to declare who you're going to vote for?

  17. #12567
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Only for the primaries. In most states, independents can vote in either Democrat or Republican primaries, though there are a few who deal exclusively with closed primaries that only allow party registered voters to engage. During the general elections, you can vote for whoever you feel like, regardless of your affiliation.

  18. #12568
    Moderator
    Registered: Jan 2003
    Location: NeoTokyo
    I think you understand it, but primaries means the vote within the party for who will be that party's nominee for president.

    While that issue is up, it's worth putting it in context.
    The new dynamic about it in our era is that ... well let's contrast it with recent history.

    Historically the party leadership has a big say in who will be top picks.

    Actually, did I tell my Dick Armey story before? When I worked for Dick Armey the summer of 1998, I very much remember he went to a leadership meeting (Armey was the Republican House Majority Leader at the time), and when he came back into the office he said effectively "The leadership has decided George W Bush is going to be the Rep candidate for the 2000 election." And in that period, they actually had that kind of power.

    It's still always the primary voters picking the actual candidate, but even when the leadership doesn't have as much power as the Rep party leaders had in the mid-90s, the viable candidates are still established figures in the party and the party leadership vouches for them, going back pretty much to the civil war period. (The 1968 Chicago Democrat National Convention was one instance where there was a strong intra-party insurgency who almost went over the heads of the establishment, basically in favor of the anti Vietnam war candidates, but the establishment candidate Humphrey won in the end. But even then, even the anti-war candidates were still themselves establishment democrats.)

    So the big development in 2016 was the ascendance of non-establishment candidates, which had been building up ever since the Tea Party insurgency. I mean not only completely outside the party, but for the two biggest figures (Trump & Sanders) actively hostile to the party they were running under (as in hostile to its established leadership, traditional platforms, and processes).

    I think one has to recognize that the party system doesn't really work very well when the persons running under it are hostile to the party itself. It's remade the Republican Party from a traditional political party, where a leadership comes up with a policy agenda and then a long-term plan to win elections and pass legislation, into something more like a personality cult, where the dear leader basically comes up with policy like he comes up with gastrointestinal movements, tomorrow's agenda easily contradicting yesterday's agenda. It reminds me of the common trope about clinical narcissists that they can't get any perspective more than 3 inches above the ground. Trump's agenda is hour by hour, for the most part pure hourly survival instinct. So it doesn't lend itself to the kind of decades-long legislative and electoral planning the Reps were cooking up under Gingrich, ironically so amazingly successful at dominating at the state level, the groundwork for electoral success, to allow someone like Trump to sweep in and completely set fire to the whole apparatus.

    As for the democrat side... Hillary was of course the establishment's establishment in 2016, and the Sanders insurgency I think is still bitter for feeling pushed out, and I don't know for sure, but I suspect they may have some motivation to purge the Democratic Party establishment if Sanders wins. But even if Sanders isn't what you'd call establishment, he's still a long-term senator and still thinks in terms of a long-term agenda. It's not like he has a literal personality disorder and attention deficit issues that make coherent policy thinking literally beyond his cognitive capacity like Trump.

    But anyway, let's see who we're dealing with first. Biden and Sanders seem to be alternating as the clear frontrunners.

  19. #12569
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Berghem Haven
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicker View Post
    It is important for the testimony of witnesses to be read into the Senate records, especially if the GOP vote to exonerate Trump.



    On a side note, who would you rather have for president?

    Vlad?
    Vlad is not "bad", is simply very badly ruthless (and a proxy soldier for Gazprom).
    Of course if I have to choose between two "evils" (sigh) I choose Vlad all the way down.
    Vlad is a competent president, not simply the classic politician mouthpiece (Trump is a competent specimen for narcisistic personalities studies).

    Of course hoping Mother Nature will take him before he can create a too much solid power complex/nexus.
    Power is bad for every living being.
    Last edited by lowenz; 29th Jan 2020 at 07:18.

  20. #12570
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by demagogue View Post
    I think one has to recognize that the party system doesn't really work very well when the persons running under it are hostile to the party itself. It's remade the Republican Party from a traditional political party, where a leadership comes up with a policy agenda and then a long-term plan to win elections and pass legislation, into something more like a personality cult, where the dear leader basically comes up with policy like he comes up with gastrointestinal movements, tomorrow's agenda easily contradicting yesterday's agenda. It reminds me of the common trope about clinical narcissists that they can't get any perspective more than 3 inches above the ground. Trump's agenda is hour by hour, for the most part pure hourly survival instinct. So it doesn't lend itself to the kind of decades-long legislative and electoral planning the Reps were cooking up under Gingrich, ironically so amazingly successful at dominating at the state level, the groundwork for electoral success, to allow someone like Trump to sweep in and completely set fire to the whole apparatus.

    As for the democrat side... Hillary was of course the establishment's establishment in 2016, and the Sanders insurgency I think is still bitter for feeling pushed out, and I don't know for sure, but I suspect they may have some motivation to purge the Democratic Party establishment if Sanders wins. But even if Sanders isn't what you'd call establishment, he's still a long-term senator and still thinks in terms of a long-term agenda. It's not like he has a literal personality disorder and attention deficit issues that make coherent policy thinking literally beyond his cognitive capacity like Trump.

    But anyway, let's see who we're dealing with first. Biden and Sanders seem to be alternating as the clear frontrunners.
    Yeah, that's one of the downsides of weak parties that you can get populists and ideologues, making it nearly impossible to build consensus. Though I'm not sure centralised parties with strong discipline are necessarily the solution either when there's so much polarisation and disillusionment with the process and so many narrow interests dictating policy.

  21. #12571
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    I don't think there is a single perfect system that can protect a republic from the dangers of populist cult of personality movements. One party governments eventually become defined by it, we're currently living proof that two party systems are susceptible to it under the right circumstances, and multi-party parliamentary systems are about as vulnerable for many of the same reasons.

    All anyone can realistically do is recognize when it's happening, and do everything in their power to weather the storm.

  22. #12572
    BANNED
    Registered: Nov 2016
    Location: Trollinus Maximus
    LMMFAO, this is Murika.

  23. #12573
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night

  24. #12574
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Oh, is that the same spiritual adviser who prayed for miscarriages of satanic pregnancies? The best people indeed.

  25. #12575
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Yeah, it is, and I actually listened to that speech. To her credit, she's speaking figuratively when she's speaking of aborting satanic pregnancies.

    ...though it's still absolutely flat out 100% Grade-A balls to the wall insane.


Page 503 of 559 FirstFirst ... 3253403453458463468473478483488493498499500501502503504505506507508513518523528533538543548553 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •