US politics - sometimes political jokes get elected

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 minute ago, mormont said:

Grade A bit of trolling if you ask me. And a great distraction. 

Meh.

[Guest]

25 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

What was the point of Speaker Pelosi tearing up Trump's speech?  The only people who are going to get a kick out of that are already deep in her corner.  Those who are Trumpanistas are going insane over it.  Why throw them red meat?

Insane people go nuts about insane stuff. I'm not going to be too arsed about it. Besides, if it wasn't this, they'd be nuts about something else.

It's not going to turn off the average voter.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 minute ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Insane people go nuts about insane stuff. I'm not going to be too arsed about it. Besides, if it wasn't this, they'd be nuts about something else.

It's not going to turn off the average voter.

Oh, they do.  I just don't see what it added.  But that's me.

[Lollygag]

3 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

What was the point of Speaker Pelosi tearing up Trump's speech?  The only people who are going to get a kick out of that are already deep in her corner.  Those are Trumpanista's are going insane over it.  Why throw them red meat?

 

Under normal circumstances, I'd not care for it but instead of the media promoting Trump's lies or the high emotional points of the speech, the headlines and talk almost everywhere are about how Pelosi objected to the content of the speech. Trump's lies don't get attention with disengaged voters and the Fox News set and a gesture everyone wants to figure out pushes the media in that direction even if they don't want to go there. Even people who never pay attention to politics are like to check out the drama of Nancy tearing up his speech in front of him on national tv.

She also drew the eye away from him throughout the speech by rifling through the papers which also highlighted when she made faces in objection to what he said.

At the beginning, Nancy set him up and he walked right into it in front of everyone. She extended her hand in a grand gesture and he rejected it (See? Impeachment wasn't personal). I'm sure she knew he'd reject it. He was the ass first. With this tweet, she underscored that Ds will reconcile and work together, so Trump's now shown himself to be the obstructionist on national tv if he refuses to work with them on upcoming legislation. Voters hate that.

https://twitter.com/SpeakerPelosi/status/1224907608982802433

 

 

 

[Ormond]

6 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

It's not going to turn off the average voter.

I'm not sure about that. It won't turn off the average Democratic activist, but I'm not sure it will be appreciated by the low information independents and suburban recently-Republican women the Dems need to win in November.

[DMC]

33 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

What was the point of Speaker Pelosi tearing up Trump's speech?  The only people who are going to get a kick out of that are already deep in her corner.  Those who are Trumpanistas are going insane over it.  Why throw them red meat?

I think it was a great symbol for the breakdown of institutional separation of powers/checks and balances that will be thoroughly demonstrated later this afternoon.  I didn't bother to watch last night, but good for Pelosi.  Kinda manipulated this, but today I'm lecturing on Federalist 51.  Madison articulating the beginnings of sop/checks & balances juxtaposed with the day that, at least in most of our current lifetimes, Congress officially and wholly ceded that premise of this country's governmental design.

..As for it "turning off" voters, give me a break.  Nobody is going to care nor remember that in their decision-making process come November.

[Larry of the Lawn]

Later today, Pelosi defenestrating Trump through sugar pane windows, he lands in a ball pit and announces his triumphant acquittal by the Senate.  Wrestling fans rejoice.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

4 minutes ago, DMC said:

I think it was a great symbol for the breakdown of institutional separation of powers/checks and balances that will be thoroughly demonstrated later this afternoon.  I didn't bother to watch last night, but good for Pelosi.  Kinda manipulated this, but today I'm lecturing on Federalist 51.  Madison articulating the beginnings of sop/checks & balances juxtaposed with the day that, at least in most of our current lifetimes, Congress officially and wholly ceded that premise of this country's governmental design.

..As for it "turning off" voters, give me a break.  Nobody is going to care nor remember that in their decision-making process come November.

I like your lecture topic. 

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, Ormond said:

I'm not sure about that. It won't turn off the average Democratic activist, but I'm not sure it will be appreciated by the low information independents and suburban recently-Republican women the Dems need to win in November.

If that's a consideration, then they'd also be taking into account Trump's rejection of Pelosi's handshake.

ETA: In fact, it could be argued that they'd be more sympathetic to Pelosi's actions due to his rejection of her handshake earlier in the evening.

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

he lands in a ball pit

I think it should be a bear pit - wrestling fans will love that.  And everyone makes sure Jaime Lannister can't jump in and save him.

[Corvinus85]

7 minutes ago, DMC said:

I think it should be a bear pit - wrestling fans will love that.  And everyone makes sure Jaime Lannister can't jump in and save him.

Jaime in this context being Ivanka?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

8 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

If that's a consideration, then they'd also be taking into account Trump's rejection of Pelosi's handshake.

ETA: In fact, it could be argued that they'd be more sympathetic to Pelosi's actions due to his rejection of her handshake earlier in the evening.

I do, the sad part is that I expect that kind of gracelessness from Trump.  It's par for the course.   Pelosi tearing up the speech, apparently in response based on the way it has been presented in the compilation videos, makes it look like it was tit for tat.  

[DMC]

5 minutes ago, Corvinus said:

Jaime in this context being Ivanka?

I dunno, like to think it'd be Rudy.  So the bear bludgeons him, knocks him out, then when going to start eating him sniffs and is like...ew, no.

[Jace, Extat]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

I dunno, like to think it'd be Rudy.  So the bear bludgeons him, knocks him out, then when going to start eating him sniffs and is like...ew, no.

Again you libertonians and your lack of respect for nature. No wonder we are the party of defeat.

No bear would attack Rudy Gulliani. For the bear knows that which you in your advanced humanistic enterprising have forgotten.

You don't fuck with crazy.

 

 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I do, the sad part is that I expect that kind of gracelessness from Trump.  It's par for the course.   Pelosi tearing up the speech, apparently in response based on the way it has been presented in the compilation videos, makes it look like it was tit for tat.  

Other than the impeachment stuff, the average voter might just now be tuning in to election horse race stuff, and it's probably the only time they've really thought about politics since 2018. And what they saw was a gesture of respect from a powerful woman to a powerful man that was rebuffed out of hand. That's going to resonate with a lot more people. The only people who probably even know about her tearing up the speech are political junkies like us and committed diehards on either side.

Also, if we're going to argue about breaking established norms in a social interaction with two people involved where both transgress the norm, then both parties must be called out, or else it just contributes to the problem.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Other than the impeachment stuff, the average voter might just now be tuning in to election horse race stuff, and it's probably the only time they've really thought about politics since 2018. And what they saw was a gesture of respect from a powerful woman to a powerful man that was rebuffed out of hand. That's going to resonate with a lot more people. The only people who probably even know about her tearing up the speech are political junkies like us and committed diehards on either side.

Also, if we're going to argue about breaking established norms in a social interaction with two people involved where both transgress the norm, then both parties must be called out, or else it just contributes to the problem.

A fair point.  As I said, the bad part is I'm generally un-surprised by Trump's gracelessness.  Its sort of like the defense to liable that your reputation is so bad a lie about it can't actually damage it.  

[.H.]

4 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

A fair point.  As I said, the bad part is I'm generally un-surprised by Trump's gracelessness.  Its sort of like the defense to liable that your reputation is so bad a lie about it can't actually damage it.  

I think both played directly to their bases fairly clearly, no?

Pelosi makes the case to the Democratic base that she is being "impartial" and/or "bipartisan" by offering the handshake.  Trump returns with an appeal to the Republican base that the Democrats are not to be bargained with by refusing.  Pelosi makes the showing of not accepting what Trump said in the speech by ripping it up.  Trump didn't need to respond, because the Republican base already took that as her being "stupid," "irrational" and "scared of Trump" (yes, I really heard people in our breakroom at work using those exact words to describe it).

People in the Republican base, that I hear talk about this stuff daily, only need one criterion to judge if something is, or is not, just.  Was it a Democrat who said it, or a Republican?  Democrats are categorically anti-American, liars and corrupt, to them.  Full stop, no evidence needed aside the party affiliation.

I have no idea what mythical "average" voters think, mainly because they probably don't exist in reality.

But what the hell do I know?

[DMC]

14 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

No bear would attack Rudy Gulliani.

Any bear would innately attack the unnatural Gollum/Golem-like creature that goes by the name Rudy Giuliani.  It's a thing against nature, and there will be an instinctual urge for the bear to purge that thing from our world.  This is why I'm not an atheist.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

16 hours ago, DMC said:

Disagree..vehemently.  That's right, bringing out the big adverbs.  The problem with the current schedule is the radically disproportionate influence of white people with IA and NH as the first two contests.  How do you fix that?  Sure, you could do it piecemeal, regional, whatever, many different ways.  But again, if we're talking ideally, just negate all those possible differences in influence by having everyone vote at the same time.  It's a very simple solution to what should be a very simple problem.

Just to throw out an idea I haven’t seen discussed yet, why not change it up and start with diverse potentially purple states with low voter registration? Seems like that could be a good way to start flipping states by expanding the voter rolls.  

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

why not change it up and start with diverse potentially purple states with low voter registration?

Yeah, if we're gonna just alter the schedule by picking which states start first, start with the most politically diverse ones that will most closely reflect the composition of the general electorate.  Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania immediately spring to mind.