u.s. politics: is this purity test covered under my obamacare?

[Red Tiger]

4 hours ago, denstorebog said:

In other news that should freak you the fuck out, half of Republicans say they would support postponing the 2020 election if Trump proposed it.

Honestly, while I know that this is not going to happen in practice, and that there's (probably, hopefully) a difference between what people believe on paper and in practice, and while I know that those 50% will be a lot less once 2020 rolls around - all of this has really been a lesson in how fragile democracy is, and how much the right wing views it as just a tool rather than the end goal. This shit just happened in the USA of all places. And there's no way that this isn't paving the way for a more subtle and likable strongman capitalizing on the exposed weaknesses down the line.

Do they even have the power to do that?

[BloodRider]

22 hours ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

Sen. Ron Johnston is saying that a Republican needs to have brain cancer to have empathy:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/09/politics/kfile-ron-johnson-john-mccain/index.html

Eh.  I am all for calling out Repubs when they are actively shitty, but this seems like he just misspoke.  Maybe I'm missing something.  But everyone has inarticulate moments that can be misinterpreted.  I appreciate it when folks give me the benefit of the doubt when I dig a verbal hole.

[BloodRider]

22 hours ago, Zorral said:

The fundamental fact about Frum ilks is that they have actively enabled in all categories of the national corruption and idiocy we are in now, and that includes economic, environmental, religious, political, gender, racial -- you name it.  That very occasionally they might get scared enough at what they've wrought to wring their hands in public does not absolve them for what they've already done.

Yeah - that's a good point too.  He did help dig up the bodies to create the monster.

[Trebla]

12 minutes ago, Red Tiger said:

Do they even have the power to do that?

Might makes right.

[Red Tiger]

1 hour ago, Trebla said:

Might makes right.

I was afraid of that.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

6 hours ago, Inigima said:

I was not aware that there was a statute of limitations on horror. How long before my terrible decisions don't count, specifically?

I think it's reasonable to hold his feet to the fire for past mistakes or transgressions or whatever. That said I think it's shortsighted to hand wave away anything he has to say now without bothering to listen to him first. You might find yourself to be pleasantly surprised.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

On 8.8.2017 at 7:54 PM, Nasty LongRider said:

Uh, he caved for the skinny bill thanks to some big Nv donors and all their beautiful money.   Tark has lost a couple of elections for different things so it remains to be seen if he can dislodge Heller. 

Well, at least he opposed the original Trump care bill, didn't he?

Anyway. Tark is trying to hitch himself to the Trump bandwagon and tries to win the primary by portraying Heller as not trumpy enough, and that he would be fully behind the President. So I don't think Heller's vote on the skinny repeal voids my point in its entirety.

[Zorral]

1 hour ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I think it's reasonable to hold his feet to the fire for past mistakes or transgressions or whatever. That said I think it's shortsighted to hand wave away anything he has to say now without bothering to listen to him first. You might find yourself to be pleasantly surprised.

No.

[Kalbear]

8 hours ago, Inigima said:

I was not aware that there was a statute of limitations on horror. How long before my terrible decisions don't count, specifically?

Well, you joined the board in what, 2002? So...at least 15 years.

[Swordfish]

7 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Wow, many folks can't see past their own noses, can they?

Meh...  Someone trots out this nonsense every year in one variation or another.  'OMG, <insert sitting president> is going to subvert the democratic process to stay in office!'

It's glorified click bait.

 

[denstorebog]

21 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

Meh...  Someone trots out this nonsense every year in one variation or another.  'OMG, <insert sitting president> is going to subvert the democratic process to stay in office!'

It's glorified click bait.

 

The story isn't that there's a danger Trump will do that, because there isn't. The story is how many people seem to be fine with the hypothetical.

[Swordfish]

1 minute ago, denstorebog said:

The story isn't that there's a danger Trump will do that, because there isn't. The story is how many people seem to be fine with the hypothetical.

Hence the 'one variation or another' part of my post.

[Fez]

2 minutes ago, denstorebog said:

The story isn't that there's a danger Trump will do that, because there isn't. The story is how many people seem to be fine with the hypothetical.

The story is more about how push polling can get around 25% of people to believe/support anything*. Take a closer look at the order of questions and what else was asked. This was a poll just designed to get publicity.

*Which is also bad. But more a sign of a fundamental problem with people, rather than anything specific to Trump voters.

[Inigima]

3 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I think it's reasonable to hold his feet to the fire for past mistakes or transgressions or whatever. That said I think it's shortsighted to hand wave away anything he has to say now without bothering to listen to him first. You might find yourself to be pleasantly surprised.

I do read him occasionally. I think he is well-meaning, like I said. And I don't think people are usually simply good/bad. But I also don't think you get to just nullify your previous bad decisions and I think that If you are frequently wrong it should hurt your credibility, particularly if you are a professional opinion-giver. (See also: Bill Kristol.)

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

8 minutes ago, Inigima said:

I do read him occasionally. I think he is well-meaning, like I said. And I don't think people are usually simply good/bad. But I also don't think you get to just nullify your previous bad decisions and I think that If you are frequently wrong it should hurt your credibility, particularly if you are a professional opinion-giver. (See also: Bill Kristol.)

Agree with all of that. In this particular case (Frum) I find it really refreshing to hear a voice on the Right voice very well thought out criticisms of Trump, especially in the face of hacks like Lahren and Prager who cannot rely on their typical defense mechanisms. At one point in Trisky's video, Prager attempts to do this, citing Hillary's uranium sale to the Russkies, and Frum simple says yeah I wrote about that. I was critical of that. None of that excuses Trump's Russian misadventures. They literally had nothing to offer in defense outside of "is this all we're going to talk about on this panel?" And Frum basically said "yeah, that's what I'm here to talk about." 

[Zorral]

54 minutes ago, Inigima said:

I do read him occasionally. I think he is well-meaning, like I said. And I don't think people are usually simply good/bad. But I also don't think you get to just nullify your previous bad decisions and I think that If you are frequently wrong it should hurt your credibility, particularly if you are a professional opinion-giver. (See also: Bill Kristol.)

Not to mention that twit, David Brooks!  As wrong as he's been as often as he's been -- he finally, in shock, during the election, realized he hadn't been paying any attention to anything that actually mattered, only his own elite, insulated circles, and wrung wrung wrung his hands, and even wept -- I hear him!.  But within a few weeks after the election he was back to pronouncing from on high just as usual -- even making an entire class / education profile out of how people ordered sandwiches, while, of course demonstrating his superiority to those without his advantages, education and -- o do not leave out -- his exquisite taste in sandwiches.  Feh on ALL of them!

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

7 hours ago, Red Tiger said:

Do they even have the power to do that?

 

Quote

Article 1, Section 9 of the United States Constitution states, "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
 

There's your answer. Trump (or the Congress) can declare martial law and suspend the election. And once you suspend it for a day, in theory, you can suspended it for as long as you'd like. Also, there are some backdoor ways to have an election, but never have the results actually count. That route though, would be harder to execute for a number of reasons.

[Trebla]

Trump has thanked  Putin for expelling the 700+  diplomats http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/346108-trump-thanks-putin-for-expelling-us-diplomats-we-want-to-reduce-our

Quote

 

Trump said he was thanking Putin because the decision allows the U.S. government to "cut down our payroll."

“I want to thank him because we’re trying to cut down our payroll and as far as I’m concerned I’m very thankful that he let go of a large number of people because now we have a smaller payroll," Trump told reporters at his Bedminster, N.J. golf club.

"There’s no real reason for them to go back. I greatly appreciate the fact that we’ve been able to cut our payroll of the United States," he continued. "We’re going to save a lot of money.”

 

Gee, nice to know that the Kremlin is making personnel decisions for the United States! 

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, Trebla said:

Trump has thanked  Putin for expelling the 700+  diplomats http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/346108-trump-thanks-putin-for-expelling-us-diplomats-we-want-to-reduce-our

Gee, nice to know that the Kremlin is making personnel decisions for the United States! 

You get the impression that if Russia happened to kill a bunch of US soldiers Trump would thank Putin for cutting his payroll as well

[Red Tiger]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

 

There's your answer. Trump (or the Congress) can declare martial law and suspend the election. And once you suspend it for a day, in theory, you can suspended it for as long as you'd like. Also, there are some backdoor ways to have an election, but never have the results actually count. That route though, would be harder to execute for a number of reasons.

Oh for FUCKS SAKE!!! Ugh, has this happened before?