US Politics: I Say a Little Prayer for You!

[maarsen]

1 minute ago, sologdin said:

if trump continues to befoul the white house after his ejectment from office, it will not affect the operativity of the united states, which defeated the british even after the white house burned in 1814.  i am aware that i have assumed that trump's foulness is not worse than complete destruction by fire; i am open to reconsideration if warranted.

Defeated the British?? 

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

So it’s best to turn the WH off? That seems illogical and makes us look like a joke. If he refuses to leave he’s trespassing and should be taken out in cuffs to set a precedent that this is never going to be allowed.

Not that it matters any time soon, since he isn't going to be losing. 

Fyi, so far neither my wife or I are decided, and the last time I talked to her it was "meh" and "whoever has the best chance".

[Zorral]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/mike-bloomberg-is-paying-influencers-to-make-him-seem-cool-9?

Quote

 

....The Bloomberg campaign has quietly begun a campaign on Tribe, a “branded content marketplace” that connects social-media influencers with the brands that want to advertise to their followers, to pitch influencers on creating content highlighting why they love the former New York City mayor—for a price.

For a fixed $150 fee, the Bloomberg campaign is pitching micro-influencers—someone who has from 1,000 to 100,000 followers, in industry parlance—to create original content....

....“Are you sick of the chaos & infighting overshadowing the issues that matter most to us? Please express your thoughts verbally or for still image posts please overlay text about why you suppo

Tribe, which works with nearly 70,000 aspiring influencers, offers brands—and, in this case, presidential campaigns—the ability to solicit custom-made content from aspiring influencers, who create custom social within the brand’s parameters for submission. If the brand accepts the content, the influencer is paid in exchange for the ability of the brand to license the content and place it on their own social channels—or, if the campaign prefers, the influencers post the #sponcon to their own feeds, targeting followers that the brand might not otherwise reach.

The campaign post, reviewed by The Daily Beast, encourages submissions to be well lit, mention why the influencer thinks “we need a change in Government,” and for the creator to “be honest, passionate and be yourself!”....

 

 

[sologdin]

Defeated the British?? 

*stalemated the british?

[Zorral]

4 minutes ago, sologdin said:

if trump continues to befoul the white house after his ejectment from office, it will not affect the operativity of the united states, which defeated the british even after the white house burned in 1814.  i am aware that i have assumed that trump's foulness is not worse than complete destruction by fire; i am open to reconsideration if warranted.

Not really. The US lost every goddamned ground action in that war, as well as quite a few on the Great Lakes. The Treaty of Ghent  was signed before Jackson defeated the Brits at New Orleans.

Where the US did very well, of course, was piracy privateering on British shipping.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

4 minutes ago, sologdin said:

Defeated the British?? 

*stalemated the british?

At best.

[sologdin]

well then, i must retract; the US needs a functional white house. if trump overstays, it might be considered a successful decapitation strike by putin.

[The Mother of The Others]

21 hours ago, sologdin said:

a) did or did not the president state an intention to run for a third term?

b) did or did not some of the president's supporters indicate that he should run for a third term?

c) is it or is it not unlawful for a person to be elected to a third term as president of the united states as the constitution is currently written?

d) whether the president may lawfully run for president for a third time or not, are you not troubled as a conservative by a person's intention to run for a third (or seventh) term as president of the united states?

e) you have no problem, therefore, with william jefferson clinton running for a third term?

f) or barack hussein obama?

 for all of you suffering from this malady, 

No pres. on that list should get a 3rd term, and none will.   It's a non-issue.

What we have here is a case of You've dehumanized the pres.  Which has consequnces for you, it turns out, because now you don't consider him capable of humor, being a demon and all, so you take all his statements literally.   That's like having autism.   Or those people who don't get irony.  Seriously.   CNN & co. (the ones brainwashing you?) are also intent on doing this literal treatment of his statements whenever they can, to get him into trouble like a bunch of 5th graders.   It's childish, but also a terrible betrayal of their duty to report news accurately.

     So, as a result, what the rest of us instantly understood was a humorous statement you took to be a serious promise to break the constitution.   That's why this discussion IS unhinged.   

That means the logical proof you laid down above was in response to a threat that doesn't exist.  And I think most of you know that, too.  You're just playing the game.  Ratcheting your paranoia up and taking this fake argument of yours wherever it needs to go, all in order to not admit the reality of the situation: trump committed no impeachable crimes, and thus the Logical course of action for the senate was to ignore the House's politically motivated abuse of the impeachment process.  That's why impeachment fizzled.  Not because of Zorral's ~ "trump's a thug who has them all trembling."   (See how far you have to go to keep from admitting the obvious?) 

 Government thugs like those are found in the nations you want us to be more like:  China.  Russia.    Here, Trump prevailed because Schiff had no case for removal from office.  That's why Schiff played the whole affair like one of those shady 3 card monty guys hussling people on the sidewalk.  Or did that escape your keen eye?  He didn't want anyone looking behing the green curtain. He was the wizard on this trip to Oz. 

Clinton had committed actual crimes, but even still I didn't want him removed either.  Because protecting yur wife from hearing about yur philandering doesn't rise to that level in most people's estimation.  Mine included.

So what you've got is a case of dems used impeachment when they shouldn't have, when they just didn't like the potus, and they agreed to do this immediately after the election, unethically, so of course the investigation then turned up squat as justification.   And now instead of admitting there was insufficient cause they're doubling down on the bitter fail, saying trump is palpatine..... when house dems are the ones abusing the tools of power all along, not T.

He's actually a very funny guy.  Often funnier than the forced laughs the late night bunch get when mocking him using his own set-ups instead of crafting their own.   

This particular jest was one ANY of us would make after political opponents just stole two years of your term away with the national focus on this circus sideshow act.  You'd feel like you deserved those years back too, and you'd make the same "statement" trump did.   

Silliness.  The whole dem position right now is in silly-sad tatters.  Like nancy's "sad and somber" act, only for real.  that's where dems have really lowered themselves into, a sad hole, like that snickers hole in the ad, only you didn't deserve that snickers bar, so now you just in a hole.

[OldGimletEye]

4 minutes ago, The Mother of The Others said:

 for all of you suffering from this malady, 

No pres. on that list should get a 3rd term, and none will.   It's a non-issue.

What we have here is a case of You've dehumanized the pres.  Which has consequnces for you, it turns out, because now you don't consider him capable of humor, being a demon and all, so you take all his statements literally.   That's like having autism.   Or those people who don't get irony.  Seriously.   CNN & co. (the ones brainwashing you?) are also intent on doing this literal treatment of his statements whenever they can, to get him into trouble like a bunch of 5th graders.   It's childish, but also a terrible betrayal of their duty to report news accurately.

     So, as a result, what the rest of us instantly understood was a humorous statement you took to be a serious promise to break the constitution.   That's why this discussion IS unhinged.   

That means the logical proof you laid down above was in response to a threat that doesn't exist.  And I think most of you know that, too.  You're just playing the game.  Ratcheting your paranoia up and taking this fake argument of yours wherever it needs to go, all in order to not admit the reality of the situation: trump committed no impeachable crimes, and thus the Logical course of action for the senate was to ignore the House's politically motivated abuse of the impeachment process.  That's why impeachment fizzled.  Not because of Zorral's ~ "trump's a thug who has them all trembling."   (See how far you have to go to keep from admitting the obvious?) 

 Government thugs like those are found in the nations you want us to be more like:  China.  Russia.    Here, Trump prevailed because Schiff had no case for removal from office.  That's why Schiff played the whole affair like one of those shady 3 card monty guys hussling people on the sidewalk.  Or did that escape your keen eye?  He didn't want anyone looking behing the green curtain. He was the wizard on this trip to Oz. 

Clinton had committed actual crimes, but even still I didn't want him removed either.  Because protecting yur wife from hearing about yur philandering doesn't rise to that level in most people's estimation.  Mine included.

So what you've got is a case of dems used impeachment when they shouldn't have, when they just didn't like the potus, and they agreed to do this immediately after the election, unethically, so of course the investigation then turned up squat as justification.   And now instead of admitting there was insufficient cause they're doubling down on the bitter fail, saying trump is palpatine..... when house dems are the ones abusing the tools of power all along, not T.

He's actually a very funny guy.  Often funnier than the forced laughs the late night bunch get when mocking him using his own set-ups instead of crafting their own.   

This particular jest was one ANY of us would make after political opponents just stole two years of your term away with the national focus on this circus sideshow act.  You'd feel like you deserved those years back too, and you'd make the same "statement" trump did.   

Silliness.  The whole dem position right now is in silly-sad tatters.  Like nancy's "sad and somber" act, only for real.  that's where dems have really lowered themselves into, a sad hole, like that snickers hole in the ad, only you didn't deserve that snickers bar, so now you just in a hole.

 

[sologdin]

r those people who don't get irony.

the only rational conclusion is that he and his supporters who are pushing for a third term do not get the irony that you allege.

 

Schiff had no case for removal from office

take this crack-smoked bullshit back to church where it belongs.  everyone admitted to withholding aid; this withholding was unalwful. on the other end, everyone admitted that election interference was sought; seeking election interference is unlawful.  the case was accordingly proven.  the acquittal was based on personal loyalty to the president, rather than on legal or ethical principle.

[Fragile Bird]

Actually, what defeated the British was malaria. When Cornwallis surrendered to Washington at Yorktown, it was because more than half his army was deathly ill.

The reason you guys drink coffee instead of tea is not really because of taxes, but because there was a widespread belief that coffee helped cure malaria. And much of the east coast swampland was infested with malaria carrying mosquitoes.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

15 minutes ago, The Mother of The Others said:

 for all of you suffering from this malady, 

No pres. on that list should get a 3rd term, and none will.   It's a non-issue.

What we have here is a case of You've dehumanized the pres.  Which has consequnces for you, it turns out, because now you don't consider him capable of humor, being a demon and all, so you take all his statements literally.   That's like having autism.   Or those people who don't get irony.  Seriously.   CNN & co. (the ones brainwashing you?) are also intent on doing this literal treatment of his statements whenever they can, to get him into trouble like a bunch of 5th graders.   It's childish, but also a terrible betrayal of their duty to report news accurately.

     So, as a result, what the rest of us instantly understood was a humorous statement you took to be a serious promise to break the constitution.   That's why this discussion IS unhinged.   

That means the logical proof you laid down above was in response to a threat that doesn't exist.  And I think most of you know that, too.  You're just playing the game.  Ratcheting your paranoia up and taking this fake argument of yours wherever it needs to go, all in order to not admit the reality of the situation: trump committed no impeachable crimes, and thus the Logical course of action for the senate was to ignore the House's politically motivated abuse of the impeachment process.  That's why impeachment fizzled.  Not because of Zorral's ~ "trump's a thug who has them all trembling."   (See how far you have to go to keep from admitting the obvious?) 

 Government thugs like those are found in the nations you want us to be more like:  China.  Russia.    Here, Trump prevailed because Schiff had no case for removal from office.  That's why Schiff played the whole affair like one of those shady 3 card monty guys hussling people on the sidewalk.  Or did that escape your keen eye?  He didn't want anyone looking behing the green curtain. He was the wizard on this trip to Oz. 

Clinton had committed actual crimes, but even still I didn't want him removed either.  Because protecting yur wife from hearing about yur philandering doesn't rise to that level in most people's estimation.  Mine included.

So what you've got is a case of dems used impeachment when they shouldn't have, when they just didn't like the potus, and they agreed to do this immediately after the election, unethically, so of course the investigation then turned up squat as justification.   And now instead of admitting there was insufficient cause they're doubling down on the bitter fail, saying trump is palpatine..... when house dems are the ones abusing the tools of power all along, not T.

He's actually a very funny guy.  Often funnier than the forced laughs the late night bunch get when mocking him using his own set-ups instead of crafting their own.   

This particular jest was one ANY of us would make after political opponents just stole two years of your term away with the national focus on this circus sideshow act.  You'd feel like you deserved those years back too, and you'd make the same "statement" trump did.   

Silliness.  The whole dem position right now is in silly-sad tatters.  Like nancy's "sad and somber" act, only for real.  that's where dems have really lowered themselves into, a sad hole, like that snickers hole in the ad, only you didn't deserve that snickers bar, so now you just in a hole.

Trump likes power.  Right?  Given that we know that why should we take “humorous” comments from him about wanting even more power as non-serious and non-threatening?

For the record, Trump is a human.  A pretty awful human, but he is clearly human.

[Kalbear]

Dont bother trying to argue the point. Just remember who said this in 2024, and marvel at how the talking point will be of course trump should be potus for the third term for (reasons).

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Dont bother trying to argue the point. Just remember who said this in 2024, and marvel at how the talking point will be of course trump should be potus for the third term for (reasons).

I'll be very surprised if he does that without a repeal of the 22nd Amendment.  It wouldn't surprise me (if Trump is reelected) to see him push to amend the Constitution to repeal the 22nd Amendment.

[Zorral]

12 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Actually, what defeated the British was malaria. When Cornwallis surrendered to Washington at Yorktown, it was because more than half his army was deathly ill.

The reason you guys drink coffee instead of tea is not really because of taxes, but because there was a widespread belief that coffee helped cure malaria. And much of the east coast swampland was infested with malaria carrying mosquitoes.

That was the War of Independence -- malaria helped, sure, but it was the French that blockaded the Brits, French military expertise in siege and sap -- which the colonist' army did not have -- and all the other aid and assistance the French provided, particularly in terms of its navy, as we see here.

The War of 1812 operated somewhat as a continuation of the War of Independence, and very much as part of the Napoleonic wars, and the it was young war hawks out of the south who didn't fight in the War of Independence as too young or not yet born, who in their idiotic southern-western arrogance WANTED a war because it would be fun!  The north really didn't want it. And the US got its hinder kicked but buckjumpin' good for much of it.  It got in licks, but never on land.  It is the most unpopular war in our history, and other than the Battle of New Orleans which put Andrew Jackson into the heads of his countrymen as a hero -- and that happened after peace and the treaty -- isn't much mentioned, much less studied in the good olden days of US education.  However, it has long been my favorite war, as it truly is a hinge event, that shapes so much of the US politically and in the nation's expectation of unending expansion -- for slavery, among other economic forces -- between the end of the era of the Early Republic and Secession.

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 minutes ago, Zorral said:

That was the War of Independence -- malaria helped, sure, but it was the French that blockaded the Brits, French military expertise in siege and sap -- which the colonist' army did not have -- and all the other aid and assistance the French provided, particularly in terms of its navy, as we see here.

The War of 1812 operated somewhat as a continuation of the War of Independence, and very much as part of the Napoleonic wars, and the it was young war hawks out of the south who didn't fight in the War of Independence as too young or not yet born, who in their idiotic southern-western arrogance WANTED a war because it would be fun!  The north really didn't want it. And the US got its hinder kicked but buckjumpin' good for much of it.  It got in licks, but never on land.  It is the most unpopular war in our history, and other than the Battle of New Orleans which put Andrew Jackson into the heads of his countrymen as a hero -- and that happened after peace and the treaty -- isn't much mentioned, much less studied in the good olden days of US education.  However, it has long been my favorite war, as it truly is a hinge event, that shapes so much of the US politically and in the nation's expectation of unending expansion -- for slavery, among other economic forces -- between the end of the era of the Early Republic and Secession.

 

Wasn't there a secessionist movement in the New England States immediately prior to and during the War of 1812 because the disruption of shipping with the UK really hurt the bottom line up there?

[Maithanet]

10 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I'll be very surprised if he does that without a repeal of the 22nd Amendment.  It wouldn't surprise me (if Trump is reelected) to see him push to amend the Constitution to repeal the 22nd Amendment.

He might mention it, but it's a completely hopeless effort.  The bar for an Amendment would mean he'd need a significant number of Democrats to sign on, and there's no way in hell that happens. 

I think that in the scenario where Trump wins reelection, he'll just prop up either Ivanka or Junior as the Republican candidate in 2024, and then joke that he'd actually still be calling the shots.  They could also campaign on pardoning him against "the witch hunt" to make the 2024 election even more about him, rather than unimportant issues like the country. 

[Fragile Bird]

12 minutes ago, Zorral said:

That was the War of Independence --

 

Lol, I perfectly well know that, duuuuuhhh! 

Funny how sometimes one part of your brain perfectly knows a fact (the War of 1812 is proudly taught in Canadian schools) and another part of your brain leaps in with something you want to share. I recently heard a great interview with the American author of a book about how malaria had an impact on world history and immediately thought of his story about how sick the British troops were.

I think the book is “The Mosquito: A Human History of Our Deadliest Predator”, by Timothy Winegard.

[Larry of the Lawn]

1 hour ago, maarsen said:

. 

One major US company does a lot of building automation. All their techs use the same password as they travel to many different sites to fix and troubleshoot. I am sure at least one is a Sanders supporter. 

When I worked landscaping in San Diego we did a lot of work in gated communities, and our work orders would usually include the gate PIN.  The gates at 3/4s of them were all from the same manufacturer, and no one ever bothered to change the default PIN.  My go-to date night was to use the pool, hot tub, and sauna at these.  

[Zorral]

20 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Wasn't there a secessionist movement in the New England States immediately prior to and during the War of 1812 because the disruption of shipping with the UK really hurt the bottom line up there?

There were a lot of outraged proposals all right, mainly from Bostonians and New Yorkers, and fiery headlines, impassioned pamphlet writing (good for printers!) and grave meetings among banking and shipping communities.