US Politics: compromising positions

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

32 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Good.  I like him where he is.  I also think that while he looks like a good candidate on paper (a midwest liberal who the establishment also likes!) that his candidacy would have been a lot worse in practice.  At this point, I don't need any more senators running.  There's already plenty. 

I still wouldn’t rule him out as a VP pick, but I think he’ll only get taken if Harris wins the nomination (and full disclosure, I did predict that they would be the ticket). And I think the Senate is still in play even if Brown becomes the VP-elect. Trump’s national polling has been pretty consistently between 38% and 42% (although it’s a bit higher right now), but his in state polling in a lot of purple states isn’t fairing so well. His negatives are doing pretty badly at the moment, and that could drag some Republican incumbents down.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

I still wouldn’t rule him out as a VP pick

I would.  That'd be a really stupid VP pick considering you almost certainly cost the Dems a Senate seat and it's not like the added-benefit of Brown on your ticket is every conceivably going to be worth it.  At all.

[aceluby]

What are the chances Trump doesn't leave if he loses?  I read an article yesterday about how he's already laying the groundwork for the inevitability, with a tweet about how the democrats can only win if they cheat, then the head of his campaign said that democrats have a 0% chance of winning a fair election, then SHS saying that democrats are only doing their investigations because they know they can't win in a fair election.

Trump was already doing this in 2016 when he didn't have power, so how does it play out when he refuses to leave and 35% of voters believe him?  Have we ever had a non-peaceful transition of power before?

[lokisnow]

6 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I still wouldn’t rule him out as a VP pick, but I think he’ll only get taken if Harris wins the nomination (and full disclosure, I did predict that they would be the ticket). And I think the Senate is still in play even if Brown becomes the VP-elect. Trump’s national polling has been pretty consistently between 38% and 42% (although it’s a bit higher right now), but his in state polling in a lot of purple states isn’t fairing so well. His negatives are doing pretty badly at the moment, and that could drag some Republican incumbents down.

Taking sherrod for vp would be breathtaking in the scope of its stupidity.

right now I think Biden / Harris or Biden / Abrams is the most likely ticket. 

And beto for RFK style AG, Barack is back as SoS

[Fez]

9 minutes ago, aceluby said:

Trump was already doing this in 2016 when he didn't have power, so how does it play out when he refuses to leave and 35% of voters believe him?  Have we ever had a non-peaceful transition of power before?

Guess it's time for the DC National Guard and the Metropolitan Police to begin practicing some anti-coup exercises.

But seriously, I think if he loses he'll bumble and bluster, and be leaving the White House on Jan. 20 exactly like he's supposed to. None of the entities with hard power would actually support him in this.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

36 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Anyone who walks onto a stage and essentially masturbates on a US flag the way Trump did at CPAC (and where else, was it at the Republican convention?) is an effing nut case.

I  BIRD!

Seriously though, why are people not put off when he goes and hugs the flag like that with a ****-eating grin. It’s disgusting.

Also, I saw on the Twitters that he’s done it at least four times.  

[DMC]

22 minutes ago, Fez said:

None of the entities with hard power would actually support him in this.

I think a lot of those entities would be hopeful he actually tries to stay in just so they'd get to drag him out of office.

[lokisnow]

58 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I  BIRD!

Seriously though, why are people not put off when he goes and hugs the flag like that with a ****-eating grin. It’s disgusting.

Also, I saw on the Twitters that he’s done it at least four times.  

It’s a great image that will help him get re-elected. The media will be unable to resist using the imagery hundreds of thousands of times, it’s going to be a core piece of visual iconography of his re-election campaign—and its gonna work wonders for him with his base.

also, it owns the libs, which makes it the bestest thing ever.

[The Anti-Targ]

Well of course the Democrats can only win by cheating. Republicans will have done an effective job at disenfranchising enough of its base that it's not possible to to win through "legally" cast ballots.

[Kalbear]

1 hour ago, aceluby said:

What are the chances Trump doesn't leave if he loses?  I read an article yesterday about how he's already laying the groundwork for the inevitability, with a tweet about how the democrats can only win if they cheat, then the head of his campaign said that democrats have a 0% chance of winning a fair election, then SHS saying that democrats are only doing their investigations because they know they can't win in a fair election.

Trump was already doing this in 2016 when he didn't have power, so how does it play out when he refuses to leave and 35% of voters believe him?  Have we ever had a non-peaceful transition of power before?

I think they're greater than 0%, which is itself pretty troubling. I don't think it's a certainty, but I can't say that would be the case for any other POTUS, and I can say that about Trump. 

My suspicion is that he'd be more willing to declare some kind of national emergency if it looked like he was going to lose. And just like now, McConnell and others would possibly support him if it made sense and they didn't lose too much face. 

At the very least, I can see some kind of massive legal battle similar to Bush v Gore happening which takes longer than usual to validate the results. And depending on the court makeup, I'm not sure what the outcome would be. 

[Kalbear]

Back to what @Lollygag was saying about compromise and working with Republicans. My personal take is that if Republicans want to work on Democrat policies, they're welcome to, but Democrats take the lead.

Would they like to work on campaign finance reform? Voting rights? Health reform? Cool beans. Dems can introduce the bill, and Republicans can potentially suggest things to improve on it or modify to get their vote. Republicans have burnt so many bridges that at this point they need to be the ones that show that they can actually be interested in governing. It's not up to Dems to do that. 

But bills that come from Trump, right now, should be considered poison. Trump has shown no ability to communicate his message of policy, no real policy goals, and virtually everything he does is at best a far-conservative position and at worst self-aggrandizement. 

[Fragile Bird]

1 hour ago, lokisnow said:

It’s a great image that will help him get re-elected. The media will be unable to resist using the imagery hundreds of thousands of times, it’s going to be a core piece of visual iconography of his re-election campaign—and its gonna work wonders for him with his base.

also, it owns the libs, which makes it the bestest thing ever.

Then I add you to the list of effing nut cases, if that's what you believe.

eta: I forgot to add "lol". I didn't mean that as a hard-ass response

[Gertrude]

I agree with what Kal said. I want both sides to reach out and work together and I'll celebrate even small steps like Grassley/Klobuchar. But it's just not happening on any scale but the very smallest. If you don't like what the other side is saying - tell them why and what you would do differently. If you don't think there's an issue, then talk about why it's not a problem and back it up. Don't dig your heels in and just yell socialism! That's not an argument, it's a scare tactic.

[Ormond]

23 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Then I add you to the list of effing nut cases, if that's what you believe.

FB, I would have thought you'd been around long enough to understand Lokisnow's style of discourse by now.

The last sentence isn't what he believes. It's what he thinks Trump believes. 

[Fragile Bird]

1 minute ago, Ormond said:

FB, I would have thought you'd been around long enough to understand Lokisnow's style of discourse by now.

The last sentence isn't what he believes. It's what he thinks Trump believes. 

I was just adding to my response, that I forgot to add 'lol'. Not meant to be a hard-ass response!

[lokisnow]

27 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Then I add you to the list of effing nut cases, if that's what you believe.

eta: I forgot to add "lol". I didn't mean that as a hard-ass response

The more outraged you get about the flag hugging iconography, the more you prove trump right. I would guess the current plan is he’s going to be doing a flag hug at every single political event for the next twenty months, and the more it induces amusing paroxysms of irritation from the libs and guarantees tv coverage of the hugs and thrice weekly front page covers of the hug, the more it will work.

if you hate it, ignore it. Give it no oxygen, don’t acknowledge it exists. The more awareness you give to his iconography the more effective you make it.

[Fez]

House Republicans never fail to amaze. The House just voted on the resolution condemning basically all forms of hate (though apparently Doug Collins was upset that anti-Mormonism wasn't explicitly called out as well) and there are 26* Republicans who voted against it (and also Steve King voted Present). Democrats were unanimous yeses.

(When I started writing this it was 26, but it looks like the vote is staying open while McCarthy tries to convince his caucus how stupid they are being voting no. It's down to 23 now).

[Fragile Bird]

4 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

The more outraged you get about the flag hugging iconography, the more you prove trump right. I would guess the current plan is he’s going to be doing a flag hug at every single political event for the next twenty months, and the more it induces amusing paroxysms of irritation from the libs and guarantees tv coverage of the hugs and thrice weekly front page covers of the hug, the more it will work.

if you hate it, ignore it. Give it no oxygen, don’t acknowledge it exists. The more awareness you give to his iconography the more effective you make it.

Since I'm not an American, it doesn't affect me directly. But this is why most of the rest of the world always nods wisely and says "crazy Americans". 

Why the hell would a president masturbating on the flag turn them on?

<nods heads>

<crazy Americans>

[Kalbear]

30 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Since I'm not an American, it doesn't affect me directly. But this is why most of the rest of the world always nods wisely and says "crazy Americans". 

Why the hell would a president masturbating on the flag turn them on?

<nods heads>

<crazy Americans>

Once again Transmet predicts the Trump presidency

[Larry of the Lawn]

The obvious Bakkake passage re: flag onanism would be Conphas and the Imperial Standard.  Also a narcissist.