U.S. Politics: Only Death Can Pay For Growth

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

They're literally burning the station down.

Yo, when you get people from one of the happiest places in the world to freak out and burn shit down, you did something wrong. 

[Guest]

That DA and U.S. Attorney fucking helped cause this by fumble-fucking around during that fucking disaster of a press conference. They should fucking get shitcanned for that disgrace.

[Jace, Extat]

19 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

That DA and U.S. Attorney fucking helped cause this by fumble-fucking around during that fucking disaster of a press conference. They should fucking get shitcanned for that disgrace.

 

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

 

Cult classic.

[GrimTuesday]

Trump is threatening to send in the national guard

 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

Trump is threatening to send in the national guard

 

He's going to start a fucking race war.

[GrimTuesday]

2 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

He's going to start a fucking race war.

I hope they put some newspapers down in the west wing, Stephen Miller tends to piddle when when he gets excited.

[Darth Richard II]

4 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

He's going to start a fucking race war.

It’s already started 

[Darth Richard II]

Fuck me we are in a lot of trouble. Stay safe everyone, even those of you I don’t like.

[Jace, Extat]

44 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said:

Fuck me we are in a lot of trouble. Stay safe everyone, even those of you I don’t like.

Never! Do you hear me? NEVER! 

I shall cast myself from the lowest dungeon in the highest peak before I take orders from you!

[ants]

1 hour ago, GrimTuesday said:

Trump is threatening to send in the national guard

There is always a tweet:

 

[ants]

11 hours ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Asking honestly, but isn't it pretty well established that gerrymanders, while not being the primary cause of polarization, at least helps contribute to it? And that's an honest question; most of the reading I've done on it says it's not the contributing factor, but it does exacerbate it.

If Democrats have more safe districts, that'll at least give some cover to allow more progressive politicians to be elected, much like how the Tea Party operates. I'm not saying that Democrats will be able to push as far to the left as Republicans were able to push to the right, but it doesn't seem illogical to conclude that a heavy hand in redistricting will allow Democrats to push further to the left than they are now.

I thought gerrymandering reduced polarization for the benefiting party, and increased it for the other.  Although I'm not sure if that is because my understanding of the seconded bolded bit is wrong.  You mention if Democrats have more safe seats, it would lead to more progressive members.  I agree (and think that's a good thing).

But gerrymandering for the Dems would reduce the number of safe seats.  Gerrymandering consolidates your opponents into as few seats as possible, which should then each be incredibly safe.  You then distribute the remaining opponents across a broad number of seats, making a number of seats that lean your way.  They're designed to be safeish, but I don't think they'd qualify for what most people consider as safe seats (as in died in the wool certainties for one party).  

So if Dems start gerrymandering (please please!), then they should actually have less safe seats, so you might get less progressives.  But it really depends if progressives are coming out of safe seats in Republican controlled states.  If they're not, its all probably a moot point anyway.  The ones I'm mostly aware are of are coming from safe seats in Democratic states.  

But this all revolves around my understanding that the polarization element comes if a seat is so safe, that the representative has to start worrying more about being primaried than losing to the opposition.  Or maybe I'm misunderstanding and the gerrymandered seats are safer than I thought. 

6 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

Maybe you should reach out to other Sanders supporters and ask them to vote in down ballot races at least or even vote for Biden.  I bet if you actually got off your fucking ass you could make some texts or calls to the estranged Sanders' contingent of deplorables.

A bit uncool considering he'd already said he's doing that.  

[ants]

4 hours ago, Zorral said:

And, of course, Klobuchar is OUT of consideration.  She wouldn't prosecute this murdering asshole.

So now, the consequences, which include violence when African Americans protested (not being white armed with automatic weapons attacking a governor, so not allowed) -- look what deathcultchief will do with this.  Not helping Biden much . . . .

Um, wasn't it pointed out above that decision for a similar case was made after she left by her successor? 

[ants]

 

7 hours ago, Simon Steele said:

Agreed. I haven't brought up Bernie forever. I don't know how many ways I can say it. He lost. He's done. We won't see him again, and that's okay. I'm excited for the young progressives coming up. But yeah, if you mention you have a problem with Biden, then you're a Bernie Bro. Which I guess is the same thing as a Bernie-"stan." 

Simon, 

You complain that you're unfairly targeted, that it's all because you're a Bernie Bro.  Have you considered its because of what you post, and you're trolling?  I've copied a few posts from this discussion below, and highlighted you're own texts.  In red I've highlighted where you say you're going to attack Biden.  In bolded black I've highlighted where you've just described yourself as a troll.  These are hardly the first times you've admitted to such behaviour.

So why are you then surprised, that when you attack Biden again, others would comment and laugh at your trolling?  To then get upset, seemingly deliberately mislabel the response as racist, and then say "woe is me" seems pretty silly.  If you want to post anti-Biden things and troll troll troll, don't complain when people laugh at it, get upset at it, or get angry.  Given, that is the goal of trolling so you would appear to achieve your goals. 

8 hours ago, Simon Steele said:

It has little to do with Sanders and everything to do with Biden and his record. But if you can look past his issues in his record by blaming Sanders, my hat's off to you. Sanders lost. I said it long ago, and I haven't brought him up. He doesn't want to be brought up. If Biden dropped out tomorrow, I truly believe Sanders wouldn't step back in. 

Biden is just a big fucking problem, and whatever helps you ignore the issues being brought up (you're a Sander supporter!!!!!!), cool man.

P.S. If Klobuchar were in his place, I'd run her down too. She's terrible. If Buttigeg or Warren got the nomination? Whatever. I'd live with it. So, I'll say it again, who gives a fuck about Sanders? He's 80, he's done, and leftists realize this. 

6 hours ago, Simon Steele said:

I don't like trolling, necessarily, but if I do troll, I wouldn't be upset if they ignored me. My trolling isn't about people personally here, either. I'll troll the shit out of Biden, and people take that personally. I ignore the trolls that personally attack me. What can I say? I choose the lesser evil of trolling. Like I'm supposed to do in November!

I mean, let's move this off me and look at the Great Unwashed. Definitely was piled on, and for what? I didn't see anything remotely inflammatory about his points. This specific thread can be real shitty, and it's not at my feet you can lay that.

 

[Fragile Bird]

7 hours ago, GrimTuesday said:

Trump is threatening to send in the national guard

 

I guess this was before Twitter put a warning label on it! The label says the tweet violates Twitter’s rules about glorifying violence, but that it may be in the public’s interest that it remain accessible.

Trump is going to go nuts. 

[Week]

30 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

I guess this was before Twitter put a warning label on it! The label says the tweet violates Twitter’s rules about glorifying violence, but that it may be in the public’s interest that it remain accessible.

Trump is going to go nuts. 

It's unbelievable how he manages to find a new low when we already thought he was at rock bottom. The quote "When the looting starts, the shooting starts" originated by a racist white Miami police chief named Walter Headley who targeted black people in 1967 ahead of the Republican convention.

I'm not sure we're going to make it to November without the cabinet discovering its backbone and the 25th amendment.

Eta- @Darth Richard II, of course!! I hope that Canada will accept refugees from the failed state on its southern border.

[Fragile Bird]

Trump's first response has been made - the original tweet was on his account, he's repeated it on the official President's twitter account. 

So it's now on the official record of the POTUS.

Nice.

[Week]

2 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Trump's first response has been made - the original tweet was on his account, he's repeated it on the official President's twitter account. 

So it's now on the official record of the POTUS.

Nice.

Side effect of taking HCQ or whatever it is they're giving him.

[Mexal]

8 hours ago, GrimTuesday said:

One of the first places to get smashed up burned down last night was an Auto Zone.

This is true. And this is the guy who did it...

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

10 hours ago, SkynJay said:

Meanwhile in Denver.

There are reports of tear gas being fired into the protesting crowd as well.

Sweet Mary Mother of God where are we...