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

View Poll Results: How long will Trump be President?

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

    26 18.71%
  • 2 Terms (8 Years)

    47 33.81%
  • 1st Term Impeachment/Assassination

    49 35.25%
  • 2nd Term Impeachment/Assassination

    4 2.88%
  • I don't know what's going on!

    13 9.35%

Thread: ✮✮✮ !Trump Dump! ✮✮✮

  1. #13001
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Washington DC


    Also, Bloomberg is now eligible to participate in tomorrow's Democratic debate. God help us if he manages to buy his way to the nomination.

  2. #13002
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Between Trump and Bloomberg, you have one president who's managed to hold his position through outright corruption of office and government, and another buying his way to the presidency, corrupting the very institution our country is built upon. Pick your poison.

    Though to look on the bright side, we can say the process is still a fundamentally American one, since we're being given one of two choices in the matter, winner takes all.

  3. #13003
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2004
    Elizabeth Warren @ewarren
    It’s a shame Mike Bloomberg can buy his way into the debate. But at least now primary voters curious about how each candidate will take on Donald Trump can get a live demonstration of how we each take on an egomaniac billionaire.
    Lol wow knives out.

  4. #13004
    Member
    Registered: Feb 2002
    Location: In the flesh.
    This is how I feel about anyone who says they won't vote for anyone but their preferred candidate. ANYONE IS BETTER THAN TRUMP.


  5. #13005
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Location: Canuckistan GWN
    Republican granting clemency to a corrupt Democrat.
    Trump is just trying to show how bipartisan he can be.

  6. #13006
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Pardoning corruption cases, huh? I wonder how many of them donated to his campaign.

  7. #13007
    Moderator
    Registered: Jan 2003
    Location: NeoTokyo
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicker View Post
    Trump is just trying to show how bipartisan he can be.
    Trump has always been and will always be unipartisan ... to himself.

  8. #13008
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Berghem Haven
    I think "pardon" tool was NEVER meant for corruption cases but something more "human level" (homicidal rampage against a long-time abuser/perpetrator, etc.) .....why pardon a corruptor? WHY?

  9. #13009
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    He's hardly the first president to pardon someone close and/or beneficial to him. Clinton pulled a couple of questionable pardons himself. It's just that Trump is the first to be so nakedly corrupt about it.

    Patti Blagojevich went on Fox News, and all but verbally blew Trump on live TV on her husband's behalf, claiming he was a victim of a Comey/Mueller witch hunt of his own, and only a leader of Donald J. Trump's sterling caliber could right this grievous wrong. Rod got his pardon soon after. I'm sure they're both registering as Republican as we speak.

    Think I'm exaggerating? I'm not.

    ...and it amazes me how many Trump defenders are now justifying this move. Here's a guy, a life long Democrat, who was held up as the de facto example of Chicago political corruption by the Republicans, and is now being defended by the very people who once derided him, in part because he also happened to be subject of an investigation fielded by two once highly regarded life long Republicans who are now openly derided in their own party.

    Up is down and down is up.


  10. #13010
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Berghem Haven
    It's why democracy is amorality at its best

  11. #13011
    Moderator
    Registered: Jan 2003
    Location: NeoTokyo
    It's all so very transparent, and the mental gymnastics they have to do to make up some story that makes it all sound fuckin-fantastic, more of that please, doesn't make it sound corrupt as hell to its core is so incoherent and, I mean, they can't hold one story together without blasting apart another one of their bs stories on another issue, they can't all be true at the same time, one literally requires another be false, and, and.... Where am I going with this? It's so stupid.

    What captured it for me this week was that emission standards report they came out with ... uh, some gov't department always puts out a report on the economic costs of car emissions and fuel standards, they've done it for like 30 or 40 years, and every year it's the same punchline, increasing fuel efficiency standards is good for consumers (lower fuel costs) and the environment (less emissions), and car companies can actually agree with stricter standards as long as all other car companies are held to them (they couldn't do it unilaterally), so even the frigging car companies were in favor of stricter standards... Well before you even get to that part, they all agree on the economic analysis about it since economics is economics. It's always the same equations with the same kind of data so there aren't ever any surprises... But ooooh nooo, not this year. This year they wouldn't let actual economists touch the analysis and left it to who knows what boneheads who concluded that the science was clear that consumers and the economy benefits from looser standards with analysis that even the car companies didn't agree with. And when economists looked at their numbers, because why should this year be so radically different from the last 40 to flip such simple logic so radically on its head, they saw really newbie mistakes, one of my favorites being that they mixed up supply and demand in the supply-demand curves to conclude that rising fuel prices increase demand, like consumers prefer to pay more for gas.... I mean, to put it into context, supply and demand curves are like what Freshmen learn in the first class of Microeconmics 101, and it's like the simplest concept to get. How braindead do you have to be to think demand rises as costs get higher? So the economists commenting on it were dumbfounded... How does one respond to what's presented as a serious economic analysis that has such boneheaded blatant mistakes?

    The whole story made me think about what stage of authoritarianism we are in the US right now. In this version, they still bother doing the math (poorly) because they fancy themselves "serious policymakers" that should be doing "serious government business". But if they get away with this kind of sloppy work with impunity, which they are, watch their faces as the realization gradually comes to them. It doesn't matter what equations and numbers they put into the reports. They may as well have put in bullshit math symbols that have no meaning and at the end put the number that they want. (Nevermind that actual companies don't even want it, so it's not even "pro-business"; they don't even get that far. It just matters what seems to be pro-business in the two microseconds their pea brains can deal with thinking about it in the most brutish way possible.) That's the track we're on right now, the gradual realization throughout the whole apparatus of federal government that they can just make up any bullshit answer they want, and eventually they actually start trolling it to smear it into people's faces that it's blatantly the wrong answer, random numbers after random symbols, you see it, I see it, everybody sees it, and there's nothing you can do about it. That's where this is going.
    Last edited by demagogue; 19th Feb 2020 at 08:31.

  12. #13012
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    "Totalitarianism in power invariably replaces all first-rate talents, regardless of their sympathies, with those crackpots and fools whose lack of intelligence and creativity is still the best guarantee of their loyalty."
    -- Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism

    Well, that's doublethink squared off, Gym Jordan is busy honing his duckspeak, what you're seeing and hearing is not what's happening... Of course the Miniplenty is not above tweaking a few numbers here and there to get the result they want.

    And here I had always thought Huxley's world would be the more plausible of the two.

  13. #13013
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Berghem Haven
    Quote Originally Posted by Starker View Post
    And here I had always thought Huxley's world would be the more plausible of the two.
    And you're right.

  14. #13014
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Berghem Haven
    Quote Originally Posted by demagogue View Post
    It's all so very transparent, and the mental gymnastics they have to do to make up some story that makes it all sound fuckin-fantastic, more of that please, doesn't make it sound corrupt as hell to its core is so incoherent and, I mean, they can't hold one story together without blasting apart another one of their bs stories on another issue, they can't all be true at the same time, one literally requires another be false, and, and.... Where am I going with this? It's so stupid. .
    It's how "post truth" world works.
    Keep bullshitting people until people's pleased or forget the reality - 'cause our good leftists friends always say there are only interpretations of reality so let's effectively turn this epistemological paradigma against them - thanks to some impressive and appealing (APPALING if you ask me) visions

    It's really simple and effective.

    Maybe you'll know this: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/05/w...-migrants.html
    Well, here in Italy, the (Alt)Right literally redefined the concept of "TO RAM" to get its point.

    Total
    Fucking
    Redefinition

    of the word itself!

    You see the video, there's NO ship "ramming" another but no, THAT'S RAMMING. Why? Because I keep repeating the appealing term "RAMMING" so it's DAMN RAMMING! So Carola is a TAFFING PIRATE RAMMING US!!!!

    And the people sadistically moved "Cuff that radical shit bitch!!1111"
    Last edited by lowenz; 19th Feb 2020 at 10:16.

  15. #13015
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Lockdown... if only
    Quote Originally Posted by Pyrian View Post
    Lol wow knives out.
    Love it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tocky View Post
    This is how I feel about anyone who says they won't vote for anyone but their preferred candidate. ANYONE IS BETTER THAN TRUMP.
    Hey, I'm flexible. I'll vote for anybody on either side except for Trump and Bloomberg, although the only two candidates that I would donate to and work for are Bernie and Liz.

    Quote Originally Posted by demagogue View Post
    What captured it for me this week was that emission standards report they came out with ... uh, some gov't department always puts out a report on the economic costs of car emissions and fuel standards, they've done it for like 30 or 40 years, and every year it's the same punchline, increasing fuel efficiency standards is good for consumers (lower fuel costs) and the environment (less emissions), and car companies can actually agree with stricter standards as long as all other car companies are held to them (they couldn't do it unilaterally), so even the frigging car companies were in favor of stricter standards... Well before you even get to that part, they all agree on the economic analysis about it since economics is economics. It's always the same equations with the same kind of data so there aren't ever any surprises... But ooooh nooo, not this year. This year they wouldn't let actual economists touch the analysis and left it to who knows what boneheads who concluded that the science was clear that consumers and the economy benefits from looser standards with analysis that even the car companies didn't agree with. And when economists looked at their numbers, because why should this year be so radically different from the last 40 to flip such simple logic so radically on its head, they saw really newbie mistakes, one of my favorites being that they mixed up supply and demand in the supply-demand curves to conclude that rising fuel prices increase demand, like consumers prefer to pay more for gas.... I mean, to put it into context, supply and demand curves are like what Freshmen learn in the first class of Microeconmics 101, and it's like the simplest concept to get. How braindead do you have to be to think demand rises as costs get higher? So the economists commenting on it were dumbfounded... How does one respond to what's presented as a serious economic analysis that has such boneheaded blatant mistakes?
    The example you mention is easily understood to be wrong by most people in the country, so it makes me wonder what the motivation is. Is this being driven by lobbying from the energy sector? Or is this like "rolling coal", just head in the sand anti-AGW sentiment reflexively driving the policy making?

    I remember examples before where political appointees make judgments counter to all the expert advice and data they're getting from the career staff, e.g. Gregory Jaczko. But it's never happened on the scale of the Trump administration. So far, I think most of the career staff are just waiting Trump out. There was some brain drain in his first term because the job market was so strong. The real question is how much more competence in government we'll lose if Trump gets another four.

  16. #13016
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Washington DC
    There's a pretty big difference between 'I won't vote for anyone but my preferred candidate' and 'I won't vote for that one, especially if they win the primary unfairly'.

    I'm sure the Democratic Party is very happy to have apologists, like that comic author, conflate the two. The DNC doesn't want to self-reflect on the wisdom of propping up weak candidates in the hopes that voters support the lesser evil over the opponent they helped install. Easier to just blame the electorate for not playing ball.

    My preference is overwhelmingly Sanders, but I will vote for whichever Democrat is nominated. Unless it's Bloomberg, in which case I stay home.
    Last edited by catbarf; 19th Feb 2020 at 13:58.

  17. #13017
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    On the other hand, a lot of Democrats seem to go in all or nothing on a candidate who failed to beat Clinton, one of the worst Democratic nominees in decades (and I'm including Gore). And yes yes, Clinton and DNC rigged the election with superdelegates and whatnot, but on the other hand, people also failed to come out for Bernie. Clinton won most of the delegates and the popular vote by a sizeable margin.

    But if you think Clinton was playing it dirty, just wait until you see what Lord Dampnut has in store for Bernie. You will see a repeat of his Clinton strategy on steroids. Expect to see Venezuela mentioned a lot. Plus all the health stuff and a wealth of stuff from Bernie's past. The Republicans will have a field day with all their favourite scaremongering tactics -- tactics that are proven to work, unfortunately.

    Don't get me wrong, I like Bernie. He's probably my favourite candidate out of the Democrats. And nothing is set in stone -- conventional wisdom only helps you so far in unconventional times. But the Democrats just don't seem to play for the win. This is not a battle won by policies, it's a referendum on Lord Dampnut, fought out in the swing states.
    Last edited by Starker; 19th Feb 2020 at 14:27.

  18. #13018
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Lockdown... if only
    Last time, the DNC strongly discouraged people from getting into the race. You only had Clinton and Sanders to choose from. Marty O'Malley was also there at the first debate, but withdrew.

    This time, we've enjoyed a spectrum of choices, which has been great so far. But now we're witnessing a giant wrecking ball of money bust through the process, and I think it's going to topple everyone but Bernie, setting this up for another bitter campaign. What I don't understand is why anybody (besides the man himself) thought Bloomberg was needed in the race. Is there somebody that can tell me that of the ~20 candidates present at the first debate, none of them were good enough to support? Do people think we have draft Kodos to beat Kang?

  19. #13019
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night

  20. #13020
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    And back to the news, it looks like Trump is now selling pardons for personal favors.

    Trump offered Assange a pardon if he denied Russia gave him emails, lawyer says.

  21. #13021
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Washington DC
    Quote Originally Posted by Starker View Post
    And yes yes, Clinton and DNC rigged the election with superdelegates and whatnot
    That's really all that matters. We don't know what could have happened, but we know that the DNC used underhanded tactics that poisoned the well among liberals and were partially responsible for both Clinton and Trump winning their primaries. The Dolchstosslegende-esque interpretation that it's fickle voters that singlehandedly lost the election is myopically self-serving propaganda, shifting all blame from the one entity that had the biggest impact on the outcome of 2016 to literally the entire American electorate.

    My-candidate-or-bust voters have never been a serious issue for either party. The candidate pool has enough good choices this time that all the DNC has to do to avoid a poor turnout is not try to steer the result.

    Quote Originally Posted by heywood View Post
    What I don't understand is why anybody (besides the man himself) thought Bloomberg was needed in the race.
    When you have ~$30 billion to throw around, nobody else is needed. He's been buying up so many staffers at high rates that small progressive organizations are having trouble just looking for employees.
    Last edited by catbarf; 19th Feb 2020 at 18:43.

  22. #13022
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Berghem Haven
    Quote Originally Posted by catbarf View Post
    When you have ~$30 billion to throw around, nobody else is needed.
    You see the problem with market+big capitals in ONE hand? (actually 2 hands :v )

  23. #13023
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2004
    I posit that the hack and release of the DNC emails had more impact on the election than everything it revealed put together. They didn't "rig" shit.

  24. #13024
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Quote Originally Posted by Pyrian View Post
    I posit that the hack and release of the DNC emails had more impact on the election than everything it revealed put together. They didn't "rig" shit.
    It wasn't THE greatest contributing factor to the 2016 election, but it was one of them. It was a perfect storm of malfeasance, fuck ups, and good old fashioned miscalculations that cost Hillary the presidency. Or in more in depth, you had a generally not-too-terribly popular candidate all but strongarming the DNC into supporting her at everyone else's expense, a server hack that gave the opposition tons of ammunition, a badly run campaign that took too much for granted, and then, as the cherry on top, the FBI reopened their case against her right before the election.

    Though to clarify, the DNC didn't rig the election. That sounds like they were tampering with ballots, and changing votes. That isn't what happened. Hillary did secure the popular vote during the primary without any weirdness going on at the voting booth. What they did was play favorites, giving Hillary the lions share of support, while cold shouldering everyone else. She had more money thrown her way, her campaign ads got more air time, they cut the debates short to favor her, presented her in front of the media more often. The DNC in 2016 was all about Hillary, everyone else got scraps, and it could be argued that the extra exposure is what allowed her to win the primaries.

  25. #13025
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Washington DC
    Quote Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
    Though to clarify, the DNC didn't rig the election. That sounds like they were tampering with ballots, and changing votes. That isn't what happened. Hillary did secure the popular vote during the primary without any weirdness going on at the voting booth. What they did was play favorites, giving Hillary the lions share of support, while cold shouldering everyone else. She had more money thrown her way, her campaign ads got more air time, they cut the debates short to favor her, presented her in front of the media more often. The DNC in 2016 was all about Hillary, everyone else got scraps, and it could be argued that the extra exposure is what allowed her to win the primaries.
    They also leaked debate questions to her campaign staff ahead of time and used the superdelegate count to reinforce the narrative that she was winning by a landslide the entire primary season.

    If 'rigged' has to mean falsifying ballot counts then sure, it wasn't rigged. I think that's overly reductionist.

Page 521 of 535 FirstFirst ... 21271421471476481486491496501506511516517518519520521522523524525526531 ... 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
  •