Jump to content

U.S. Politics: Impoverished In Squalor


lokisnow

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

She's as vile as anyone in the administration, and my personal belief is that without her carrying water for Trump over the last few months of the campaign, he wouldn't have won.

It is hard to imagine Trump surviving the Access Hollywood scandal without a woman already in place to do PR for him and explain endlessly that bragging about regularly committing sexual assault is not a big deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Martell Spy said:

You made a severe mistake, not practicing to be a Crew member with Todd, and should be harshly punished for it.

No no no you’ve got it all wrong. Larry’s mistake was studying. If he wanted to go to Yale, he should have gone over to Timmy’s for skis with Judge, Tom, PJ, Bernie and Squi.

Fools!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

It is hard to imagine Trump surviving the Access Hollywood scandal without a woman already in place to do PR for him and explain endlessly that bragging about regularly committing sexual assault is not a big deal.

I don't see why. 

It doesn't, honestly, matter. His sexual proclivities or grabbing women is not something that most people consider a bad thing, and certainly not disqualifying. As much as people decry others for voting against their interests, in this case a lot of people voted strongly for their interests and got precisely what they wanted. Evangelicals in particular got someone who promoted the most conservative, anti-women policy in the last 50 years, one that will pay off for them for a generation. 

What, are the people who are offended by this going to vote for the person who says 'women's rights are human rights'? Please. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Gertrude said:

I'd like to believe that a married couple couldn't survive the stress and disrespect George shows Kellyanne by belittling her boss like he does. My head cannon is that Kellyanne is simply doing her job and is not a Trump supporter per se. She comes home from work, pops open a bottle or two of wine and bitches about her asshole boss to her husband and she relieves stress by tweeting out on her supportive husband George's account as they giggle drunkenly until she breaks into sobs and then comforts herself with her bank balance. If any of this is not true, then they need to work some shit out. 

It's a funny idea, but it's hard to believe. And George is taking it to new levels that could easily get his wife fired (not that he would mind). It's one thing to publicly question a spouse's boss' work effort, but it's another to question his sanity. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

It's a funny idea, but it's hard to believe. And George is taking it to new levels that could easily get his wife fired (not that he would mind). It's one thing to publicly question a spouse's boss' work effort, but it's another to question his sanity. 

I think you have an ethical duty to your spouse to not create problems for them at work, but you also have an ethical duty to the rest of the world when you're someone with a voice.  And it's not like he's just calling out her boss, he's calling out the fucking president.  The president should be fair game no matter what.  That's like, central to free speech.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The Great Unwashed said:

She's as vile as anyone in the administration, and my personal belief is that without her carrying water for Trump over the last few months of the campaign, he wouldn't have won.

Agree with all of this. I remember defending her at one point during the campaign pointing out to a friend that she was doing an amazing job spinning and defending Trump. Her ability to bullshit, avoid, deflect, defend, obfuscate, etc is pretty impressive. Done for a despicable purpose, but pretty impressive. It becomes easier to see through and dismiss the more you get used to her style, but when she was first in the public eye, she seemed formidable to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

Its the most perplexing aspect to this disgraceful administration, how he manages to have so little integrity, self dealing with charity money, the lies upon lies, the constant tantrums and disparaging behavior, not to mention the illegalities committed by this admin. , that even with all those clouds this crass being, somehow manages to have +30% support from somewhere?

I would think a support range of around 10% would be what i'd expect for someone so clearly lacking in any redeemable aspect. I just do not get this Presidency at all, its a very surreal feeling having this embarrasment as our President.

Neck deep in Trump fans here.  NONE of what you cited matters to them.  Talk politics with a Trump follower, the very first thing they'll do is give Trump full credit for the fantastic economy.  International relations?  To them, Obama trashed the US's reputation with his 'apology tour' - a huge deal on the right that barely even gets a a mention on the left, and straight talking Trump fixed that by taking no crap from those treacherous foreigner's.  The sex stuff - that' just locker room talk.  Corruption?  Trump's a big shot businessman; of course he's played fast and loose with the rules a few times.  This worldview is supported by Trumps marginal successes - convincing NATO nations to fork over more for their defense, a booming stock market and low unemployment rate.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty sure I disagree diametrically with the weird consensus about the Kelly marriage.  First of all, people can vehemently disagree and still have great relationships.  GTFO that that can't happen, it happens all the time.  And there's generally nothing morally wrong with it.  Second of, political operatives can DEFINITELY get together even if they're on opposing sides.  Frankly, that should happen every once in awhile statistically. 

Thirdly, I hate trying to psychoanalyze two public figures' relationship.  It seems invasive, because it is.  If I'd say anything, it'd be that Kellyanne was a middling pollster that recognized she could extremely raise her profile by ingratiating herself with Trump.  And she obviously succeeded.  What is absolutely wrong - that's been proposed - is that being a part of Trump's staff is generally beneficial career-wise.  NO.  Just the opposite.  From top-down anyone that wants a political future does not want to be a part of the Trump administration.  That's observable.  I wonder why that is..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rep. Devin Nunes (R. Fresno CA) is suing Devin Nunes Mom and Devin Nunes cow and—because Devin Nunes is unaware of who Donald Trump is—Devin Nunes is also suing twitter for suppressing conservative tweets, including his own, and Devin Nunes materially blames twitter for singlehandedly reducing his rightful margin of victory in elections, a right to which he is unquestionably and eternally entitled in all elections:

https://www.fresnobee.com/news/politics-government/article228102484.html

 

Quote

“Nunes endured an orchestrated defamation campaign of stunning breadth and scope, one that no human being should ever have to bear and suffer in their whole life,” it reads. “Unlike prior elections, where Nunes won by sweeping majorities, Nunes won on November 6, 2018 by a much narrower margin, receiving 52.7 percent of the 222,379 votes.”


Read more here: https://www.fresnobee.com/news/politics-government/article228102484.html#storylink=cpy

But all is not lost, Nunes also declared this Westeros politics threads to be politically neutral in nature because of the format in which it exists!

Quote

“Twitter is not a neutral platform such as an Internet bulletin board,” the lawsuit says. “To the contrary: As part and parcel of its Twitter’s (sic) role as an internet content provider, Twitter and its CEO, Jack Dorsey, actively endorse and promote the many agendas of the Democratic Party.”


Read more here: https://www.fresnobee.com/news/politics-government/article228102484.html#storylink=cpy

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, DMC said:

Pretty sure I disagree diametrically with the weird consensus about the Kelly marriage.  First of all, people can vehemently disagree and still have great relationships.  GTFO that that can't happen, it happens all the time.  And there's generally nothing morally wrong with it.  Second of, political operatives can DEFINITELY get together even if they're on opposing sides.  Frankly, that should happen every once in awhile statistically. 

I don't disagree with this - I was fascinated with Carville and Matalin in the day. Maybe I'm whitewashing them, but they seemed to respectfully and ideologically disagree with each other - even if they got down in the mud against candidates. The G Conway tweets seem to hold more disdain for Trump than simple ideology, and that implies disdain for those supporting him. 

What I said was tongue in cheek, but with a grain of truth. If my partner publicly trashed the cause I was the public face of and truly believed in (Trump), there would be some serious stresses in my relationship. I would interpret that as disrespect and ask him, not to stifle his disagreement, but to at least tone it down on twitter. Stay away from the personal (mental state) and keep it to policy. That's why I suspect there is more of a private agreement or understanding we don't get to see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, lokisnow said:

Rep. Devin Nunes (R. Fresno CA) is suing Devin Nunes Mom and Devin Nunes cow and—because Devin Nunes is unaware of who Donald Trump is—Devin Nunes is also suing twitter for suppressing conservative tweets, including his own, and Devin Nunes materially blames twitter for singlehandedly reducing his rightful margin of victory in elections, a right to which he is unquestionably and eternally entitled in all elections:

https://www.fresnobee.com/news/politics-government/article228102484.html

 

But all is not lost, Nunes also declared this Westeros politics threads to be politically neutral in nature because of the format in which it exists!

 

It is odd how the right is so ready to tell private companies that they can’t deny their products towards certain groups the companies  don’t like-but suddenly if a gay couple desires a cake for a wedding, suddenly it’s services shouldn’t be compelled, capitalism is great, why can’t the government let the free market breath.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.thedailybeast.com/elizabeth-warren-calls-for-elimination-of-electoral-college?ref=home

I know the EC is unpopular for obvious reasons, but the minimum 270 to win forces us into 2 major parties. If we get rid of the EC, what prevents the parties from splitting and new parties from popping up thus allowing one to win the majority with say just 30 some percent of the vote? 

To me, it looks the EC is a trade off of some bad results (EC win over the popular vote) to prevent potentially disastrous results like minority wacko parties winning the popular vote with only a fraction of the actual majority. 

If we get rid of the EC, we still need to make sure that the majority that wins is actually reflective of the support of the majority of the population, and not just some nut job faction which came out on top because the rest were too fractured to compete. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Lollygag said:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/elizabeth-warren-calls-for-elimination-of-electoral-college?ref=home

I know the EC is unpopular for obvious reasons, but the minimum 270 to win forces us into 2 major parties. If we get rid of the EC, what prevents the parties from splitting and new parties from popping up thus allowing one to win the majority with say just 30 some percent of the vote? 

To me, it looks the EC is a trade off of some bad results (EC win over the popular vote) in trade off for potentially disastrous results like minority wacko parties winning the popular vote with only a fraction of the actual majority. 

It really isn't. There are a crazy amount of democratic ways to ensure that this isn't the case which are in place in basically every other democracy on the planet. The EC doesn't even guarantee this either - nothing ensures one candidate will get 270, even when there are only two candidates. 

And do you know what happens if there isn't a majority of ec votes for one person?

1 minute ago, Lollygag said:

If we get rid of the EC, we still need to make sure that the majority that wins is actually reflective of the support of the majority of the population, and not just some nut job faction which came out on top because the rest were too fractured to compete

Again, the implication here is that the ec actually does this, which is demonstrably false, as 2 of the 5 elections in the last 19 years were won by someone who got fewer votes than the other one. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

It really isn't. There are a crazy amount of democratic ways to ensure that this isn't the case which are in place in basically every other democracy on the planet. The EC doesn't even guarantee this either - nothing ensures one candidate will get 270, even when there are only two candidates.  

And do you know what happens if there isn't a majority of ec votes for one person?

I'm not doubting what you say here because I don't know, but my problem is that when the EC is brought up to be eliminated, the implied and incorrect assumption seems to be that we will remain 2 major parties which are fairly evenly balanced. That preventing a popular majority win of 20-30% or something by a possibly wacko faction isn't being brought up in discussions of alternate systems is deeply concerning to me. 

Yes, it goes to the House which is another check and balance though an imperfect one.* 

37 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Again, the implication here is that the ec actually does this, which is demonstrably false, as 2 of the 5 elections in the last 19 years were won by someone who got fewer votes than the other one. 

I know that. You misread what I said. I said "reflective" because I know it's not perfect. It just gets close sometimes. A lot closer than a popular vote win of like 30% or something. 

I'm not against getting rid of the EC in principle, but don't do so under the false assumption that we'll stay two major parties which means one will always get a clear majority of 50%+ or close enough if accounting for the Green, Libertarian, etc parties. 

Can you point me to these "crazy amount of democratic ways to ensure that this isn't the case which are in place in basically every democracy on the planet" are accounted for in discussions of moving to a popular vote in the US? I've not come across any. 

 

*The backup House vote involves state delegations and is more complex than the typical House vote. 

https://heavy.com/news/2016/11/what-happens-if-no-candidate-gets-receives-270-electoral-college-votes-majority-win-election-donald-trump-hillary-Clinton/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Lollygag said:

 

Can you point me to these "crazy amount of democratic ways to ensure that this isn't the case which are in place in basically every democracy on the planet" are accounted for in discussions of moving to a popular vote in the US? I've not come across any. 

 

I'm sure I'm less knowledgeable about this particular point than many others on this thread, but the first most obvious answer is to have a runoff provision in popular vote Presidential elections -- if no one gets over 50% in the first go around, you have a runoff with only the top two vote getters from the first round. There are several states in the USA that already use that system in voting for governors.

Or you could use a ranked choice voting system like the one which is already in place in the state of Maine. (The link below questions the constitutionality of this, but of course any elimination of the E.C. that would include ranked choice voting would be a constitutional amendment which would overcome that objection.)

https://www.popsci.com/best-voting-system-math

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, DMC said:

Pretty sure I disagree diametrically with the weird consensus about the Kelly marriage.  First of all, people can vehemently disagree and still have great relationships.  GTFO that that can't happen, it happens all the time.  And there's generally nothing morally wrong with it.  Second of, political operatives can DEFINITELY get together even if they're on opposing sides.  Frankly, that should happen every once in awhile statistically. 

I don’t think anyone is saying that you cannot disagree with your spouse about their politics, or even who they work for. I’ve dated a staffer for a Republican before, and we had a great relationship while we were together. What’s a bit odd here though is how publicly their disagreement is, and how vicious one side is. I can’t say I’ve seen anything like it before. We have examples like the aforementioned Carville and Matalin, but they’ve always been rather respectful of their disagreements. And then there’s this:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, lokisnow said:

Rep. Devin Nunes (R. Fresno CA) is suing Devin Nunes Mom and Devin Nunes cow and—because Devin Nunes is unaware of who Donald Trump is—Devin Nunes is also suing twitter for suppressing conservative tweets, including his own, and Devin Nunes materially blames twitter for singlehandedly reducing his rightful margin of victory in elections, a right to which he is unquestionably and eternally entitled in all elections:

https://www.fresnobee.com/news/politics-government/article228102484.html

"Like Devin Nunes' Mom, Devin Nunes' Cow engaged in a vicious defamation campaign against Nunes."

Let these words redound through the history of our Glorious Republic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...