U.S. Politics: Trump of the Will

[Jace, Extat]

17 minutes ago, HoodedCrow said:

We need some slogans and cheers.

Starting simple, “Let’s go Democrats, let’s win!

"Send him home."

[Inigima]

I don't doubt the accuracy of the reporting on those polls, but they only tell you so much. The electorate is woefully poorly informed, particularly on policy. They don't like Obamacare , but they like the Affordable Care Act. Even the ones who don't like either do like the individual provisions contained therein and don't want them to go away, often assuming that those provisions were already the law.

As for impeachment support, support for Nixon's impeachment was quite low as well — until impeachment hearings began and the electorate began to hear about what Nixon did. What Trump did is approximately 6000 times worse, but a significant number of Republican voters haven't heard about any of it, because Fox and right-wing talk radio are such effective propaganda. Remember when that lady said she was shocked to discover that the Mueller Report wasn't favorable to the President, because she had only heard the opposite from the Republican "news" bubble? 

Televised impeachment hearings would be much more difficult to ignore.  Not enough of the corruption and malfeasance is on television to get to these people. 

[Jace, Extat]

What news programs do you think these people will be watching to learn about impeachment? You think fox news is just gonna present the facts? They'll act like this is the long awaited invasion of France and call out every reserve to scream about the injustice. They've been priming their base for it for 3 years.

[HoodedCrow]

So, no “Jail time Trumpy, jail time.”?

[DMC]

Yeah I was gonna say the slogan is easy as fuck - "Lock Him Up!"

[Jace, Extat]

23 minutes ago, HoodedCrow said:

So, no “Jail time Trumpy, jail time.”?

 

20 minutes ago, DMC said:

Yeah I was gonna say the slogan is easy as fuck - "Lock Him Up!"

Actually now that I think about it one of the women should go ahead and get "Shut Him Up!" trademarked, before he uses it on them.

[Paladin of Ice]

51 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

 

Actually now that I think about it one of the women should go ahead and get "Shut Him Up!" trademarked, before he uses it on them.

I think this one has a much better chance of being viewed favorably without falling into the inevitable "BOTH SIDES!!!111!!!111!" crap if you use "Lock him up" or "Send him home". Because just about everyone who isn't a Republican does want Donny to shut up.

[ThinkerX]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Yeah I was gonna say the slogan is easy as fuck - "Lock Him Up!"

The problem with that is the democratic party would be defining itself exclusively as Trumps foe.  It does not say what they stand for, hence, big chance it'd flop.

[Mexal]

18 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

The problem with that is the democratic party would be defining itself exclusively as Trumps foe.  It does not say what they stand for, hence, big chance it'd flop.

Maybe. I think this election will be defined by Trump. More people will be motivated by another 4 years of Trump or avoiding another 4 years of Trump rather than any progressive ideals that will not stand a chance of getting through Congress. 

[DMC]

1 hour ago, ThinkerX said:

The problem with that is the democratic party would be defining itself exclusively as Trumps foe.  It does not say what they stand for, hence, big chance it'd flop.

Reelections are always about the incumbent.  No point in pretending they're not.

[Zorral]

Reading the media this weekend, reading here, it sure sounds as if We Who Know have decided tvillain's second term is in the bag.  Especially with the disaster of choosing the next Dem candidates' debate format and who is with whom.

What I really want is that each candidate get asked, "When you are elected and the armed uprising rises, what is your plan for dealing with it?"

[The Anti-Targ]

"Make America Great Again" is complete bullshit, but it's a fricken' awesome slogan. It only works when you're the opposition, and it's only a once in a couple of generations thing. At the end of Trump's second term his Republican would-be replacement can use it, neither can any Democrat. "Yes we can" was equally vacuous, and equally effective.

The problem is real policies for making things better are hard to sloganise.

[Larry of the Lawn]

1 hour ago, Zorral said:

Reading the media this weekend, reading here, it sure sounds as if We Who Know have decided tvillain's second term is in the bag.  Especially with the disaster of choosing the next Dem candidates' debate format and who is with whom.

What I really want is that each candidate get asked, "When you are elected and the armed uprising rises, what is your plan for dealing with it?"

The more I hear this stuff the crazier it sounds.  Trump's crazier than a shithouse rat and he has plenty of followers drinking the koolaid.  But this armed uprising shit is total nonsense.  You think talking about medicare for all is bad?  How is it going to sound when candidates assume the oppositions voters will rebel with violence?

[Zorral]

2 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

The more I hear this stuff the crazier it sounds.  Trump's crazier than a shithouse rat and he has plenty of followers drinking the koolaid.  But this armed uprising shit is total nonsense.  You think talking about medicare for all is bad?  How is it going to sound when candidates assume the oppositions voters will rebel with violence?

Ya and he and his are totes not racist, rapists, pedophiles, criminals and traitors who suggest at every rally that US citizens who aren't for them be beat up, locked up, deported and, yes, even killed.

Not to mention how often outright murder has been and continues to be committed all the time in this county by these same people you characterize as kool aid drinkers, who all seem to have guns.  A lot of guns. Who want to use those guns more than almost anything else they want, unless it's doing a rape and lynching before they start shooting -- and burning down stuff too.

I sure hope you get proven right and I get proven wrong.

[Martell Spy]

20 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Ya and he and his are totes not racist, rapists, pedophiles, criminals and traitors who suggest at every rally that US citizens who aren't for them be beat up, locked up, deported and, yes, even killed.

Not to mention how often outright murder has been and continues to be committed all the time in this county by these same people you characterize as kool aid drinkers, who all seem to have guns.  A lot of guns. Who want to use those guns more than almost anything else they want, unless it's doing a rape and lynching before they start shooting -- and burning down stuff too.

I sure hope you get proven right and I get proven wrong.

I just don't see it. Unless we are talking about a Whiskey Rebellion or animal sanctuaries taken over. Yes, the militias may well believe they can stand up to the tanks, but that does not make it so. Unless you think that we are going to turn into a country where military coups happen, just because a agent orange wants it to happen. I don't buy that.

[Larry of the Lawn]

I know this is just a tweet but I think it's pretty on point, to me anyway, in regard to some of the disagreement and discussion we've had here the last few weeks between everyone who isn't voting for Trump:

 

[Zorral]

31 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

I just don't see it. Unless we are talking about a Whiskey Rebellion or animal sanctuaries taken over. Yes, the militias may well believe they can stand up to the tanks, but that does not make it so. Unless you think that we are going to turn into a country where military coups happen, just because a agent orange wants it to happen. I don't buy that.

Why do you presume that tanks will try to oppose them?

Again, I hope you're right, but the crazies through faux and religion have made enormous inroads in the military.

Still, an enormous amount of terror and mayhem can happen w/o the military being involved at all.  Especially if the cops are involved.

[DMC]

34 minutes ago, Triskele said:

Am I right that in order to do this they'd just need to decide by the time their party has its own election for being Senate nominee? 

They only need to decide before/at the filing deadline.  It's March 17 in Colorado.  Remember Rubio deciding to run again after getting out of the race in 2016?  

Hickenlooper would be a great candidate but it already looks like a vibrant primary based on fundraising, and Romanoff has already cornered most of the institutional support.  They should be able to pick up Gardner's seat without him, and it since he's consistently said he doesn't want it and he must know he has no chance at the presidential nomination, I'll take his word for it.  As for Beto I'd go away for a bit if I were him.  He's very unlikely to beat Cornyn and if he lost then his carreer'd be done.

[Martell Spy]

3 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Why do you presume that tanks will try to oppose them?

Again, I hope you're right, but the crazies through faux and religion have made enormous inroads in the military.

Yes, I don't think the military are that crazy or stupid. We are not talking about simply the tanks roll out, the Republicans keep power, abortion is outlawed, and most things remain the same. How long would that last? How long in that situation would the status quo remain of blue states sending money to red states?

We are talking about civil war or break-up. This isn't science fiction or fantasy, but it is some pretty wild speculation. It could happen, but I just don't believe we are there yet. On this topic, I'd recommend a novel I'm reading at the moment. American War by Omar El Akkad. 

The great project of the right is defending the property rights of rich white pricks. If rule of law is shattered, it is an open question if they keep their property. Even when Democrats win elections, the system favors the rich and white.

[Larry of the Lawn]

3 minutes ago, Triskele said:

I've read it a few times and do not understand what point is being made.  It kind of seems to be saying this debate is good and necessary but also seems to be saying it's destructive.  What am I missing?  

I'll admit the use of "destructive" is confusing, I'm taking the liberty of assuming it to mean that any "destructive-ness" is caused by the assumption that this disagreement is destructive to begin with.  How as soon as some debate starts up someone has to chime in with "how can you expect to beat the oppositiob if you're arguing among yourselves?" 

It's the same mentality that forces every voter to say shit like "I just want to see everyone come together and work on...".  There's this rejection that that arguing and debate isn't part of that process in the way we frame so many political observations.