Autocracy is when the black helicopters start flying around and they round up people for 're-education'.
Definitions or no, I think we should be alarmed long before the government actually starts implementing re-education camps. If we waited until we were already living in a fascist country before we started crying foul, the war for American democracy would already have been lost. It's just like fighting cancer or fighting crime--you don't wait for it to win before you take your medicine or enforce the law.
We need to fight autocracy in its budding stages; not just when it takes over the world.
Autocracy at it's budding phases is whenever somebody in power does something that you don't agree with...
Oh please. Show pictures of any political rally and you'll see the same damned thing. People that show up to these rallies are die-hard fans, sycophants and/or zealots. A friend of mine's wife dragged him to a Clinton rally in Detroit not long back and it was no different. Just a different message...
Pretty sure Clinton wasn't calling for her political enemies to be put to death for treason while lying about every single facet of reality.
while I agree with a lot of your argument, I'm not sure that Iraq was such a defining moment compared to other past events. In terms of scale there were about 200,000 US soldiers involved in the peak of the Iraq war - far fewer than in either Korea or Vietnam. The nature of the conflicts in those earlier wars were also different and I suspect probably more traumatizing to soldiers - even if the effects of such trauma were less recognized in the past.
I never understood why so many people support wasting resources to interfere in another side of the world. Never worked and is a waste of resources. In fact, this migrant crisis is mostly done by the destabilization of middle east
Anyway, one think that i dol't understand on Bolsonaro government, is. Why he doesn't call an plebiscite to revoke all laws approved during the "bribecracy"? He can do that according to my understanding. If the population votes to nullify all of the laws who was passed via bribery, not by an normal democratic way, affirmative actions on education? draconinan mexican style gun laws? Many mandatory spending? Dysgenics via government program that increases natality between poors? A lot of regulatory agencies that only created artificial monopolies/oligopolies? All will go down in a just single strike. No, the country will not become an first world country, but will become much better.
Still will be a lot of working regulations, a lot of gun regulations, a lot of revitalization of propriety rights, but will be much better. The best constitutions in therms of quarantining personal freedom was the monarchy constitution and we should be a monarchy. The constitution after the fell of military dictatorship is a semi socialist one.
I had completely forgotten to mention something else in regards to the money laundering flags put up by the employees at Deutsche Bank. There is a status of clients who are classified as "politically exposed persons". In other words, they automatically receive extra scrutiny because of their power and access to others in power. Again, it is a regulatory MANDATE in banking that such people be treated with even more scrutiny. The fact that the Executives ignored these warnings is a scandal, in and of itself aside from WHO they ignored them for, that the House Financial Services Committee has an absolute right to get to the bottom of.
China is trying to flex its muscles in Australia by using Chinese-Australians (ethnic Chinese in Australia with ties to the PRC, which is a growing population) to manipulate public opinion .
In a gold-curtained meeting room in Sydney, the Chinese consul general appealed to a closed-door gathering of about 100 people, all of them Australian residents and citizens of Chinese ancestry.
He called on the group to help shape public opinion during a coming visit of China’s prime minister, Li Keqiang, in part by reporting critics to the consulate. Rallies in support of China should be coordinated, he suggested, and large banners should be unfurled to block images of protests against Beijing.
“We are not troops, but this task is a bit like the nature of troops,” said the diplomat, Gu Xiaojie, according to a recording of the session in the consulate obtained by The New York Times and verified by a person who was in the room. “This is a war,” he added, “with lots of battles.”
This sounds illegal. In 2018, Australia passed a law that made it illegal to "engage in any covert activity on behalf of a foreign government that aims to influence the process of Australian politics — including activities typically protected in a democracy, like organizing a rally." Apparently, it's very common for the Chinese government to lobby Australian politicians and businessmen, sometimes threatening economic punishment if the Australians don't cooperate.
You know, I used to think that foreign meddling wasn't really the CCP's style, what with their constant complaining about the U.S. meddling in Chinese affairs. But it's becoming increasingly clear that the Chinese Communist Party has absolutely no ethical qualms about threatening other countries into serving its whims. It's alarming to see an American ally being subjected to this kind of pressure.
1) I just spit coffee out of my nose. Not even going to reference what caused it, though. Let's move on.
2) Foreshadowing /= character development
3) I'm of two minds about this, but I kind of think the Dems need to chill out. Trump tweaked everyone by insinuating he wants to add two years to his term... I get that it is him putting out "feelers for tyranny..." but all people have to do is carry on as usual. There's going to be an election (administered by the states), and nobody's changing the Constitution anytime soon. As long as people keep their heads, this poopstorm will pass. To quote Varys the Spider, power resides where people believe it resides. As long as Americans believe in the Constitution - even if they have differing interpretations of it - tyranny cannot take root here.
Which is not to say the storm of poop shouldn't be opposed. Dems should be positively ashamed that Justin Amash has done a better job of clearly and succinctly stating the case against Trump and Barr than anyone from the actual opposition party.
What happens if Trump decides he doesn't trust the election results and refuses to vacate the White House? What repercussions will happen?
What repercussions can happen if the Republican party in 2024 just declare Trump their candidate again What stops them from breaking a rule?
Carrying on as usual, will make both of these scenarios unaddressable if the country waits for them to happen before reacting.
A vegan firefighter has filed a complaint with the Humans Right Tribunal because the camp failed to abide by his ethical standards when it came to prepping his food.
I sure as hell hope he loses this case. He wasn't discriminated against because he was a vegan, he was suspended because he was being a dick. He shouldn't see a cent of Canadian tax payer dollars.
Yesterday marked the 5th child to die in border patrol custody in the last 6 months. People keep saying that this is, at worst, a coincidence and not at all related to the current policies. Maybe, but then explain this: in the previous ten years, NO children died in Border Patrol custody. Now in 1/20th of that time-frame under Trump's new policies, 5 have. But this story follows the same pattern as the now constant stories revealed about Trump properties employing undocumented workers by the dozens (and those are only the ones we know about). No matter how many times it happens or how many get revealed, it is either not their fault or they can't be held responsible. There is no reason given for this conclusion, it is just accepted as the way it is.
What happens if Trump decides he doesn't trust the election results and refuses to vacate the White House? What repercussions will happen?
This is not possible so I would not expend any mental or emotional energy worrying about it. Sure, he may contest the results but if the verified results state that he is no longer POTUS then he will be forced to leave, even if that means that Federal Marshals and/or Secret Service agents have to carry him out.
What repercussions can happen if the Republican party in 2024 just declare Trump their candidate again What stops them from breaking a rule?
This, also, is not possible because of the 22nd Amendment. Repealing an amendment requires a 2/3 vote of both Houses of Congress then ratification by 3/4 of the States (or, I think, a "Constitutional Convention" convened in 3/4 of the States...but don't quote me on that one); even if everyone hurried, repealing an amendment would take at least a decade.
"What happens if Trump further escalates his habit of disregarding the law?"
"That's impossible. There are laws that say he can't."
Let us presume for a moment that Trump feels he is the actual winner in an election he lost. Does that mean that everyone else will go along with his delusion? Of course not, which is why asking questions such as "what happens if Trump refuses to leave the White House?" is pointless.
"What happens if Trump further escalates his habit of disregarding the law?"
"That's impossible. There are laws that say he can't."
Let us presume for a moment that Trump feels he is the actual winner in an election he lost. Does that mean that everyone else will go along with his delusion? Of course not, which is why asking questions such as "what happens if Trump refuses to leave the White House?" is pointless.
Depending on the specifics, I would expect many people to go along with that delusion, including Fox News and a strong majority of the Republican base. His approach, as always, would be to muddy the waters and stall, to ease people into supporting absurd positions. In this case, that would mean claiming mass voter fraud and mounting dozens of legal challenges, while making increasingly credible threats about jailing his opponent. If he can get 30% of the country firmly behind him and another 20% confused enough to "wait and see," then it's not clear what the outcome would be.
This stuff happens in other countries. I don't expect it to happen here, but it's naïve to think that it can't happen here.
Trump tweaked everyone by insinuating he wants to add two years to his term... I get that it is him putting out "feelers for tyranny..." but all people have to do is carry on as usual. There's going to be an election (administered by the states), and nobody's changing the Constitution anytime soon. As long as people keep their heads, this poopstorm will pass.
He has gone farther than his "joke" that his first two years, during which time Republicans controlled all branches of government (the House of Representatives, the Senate and the Supreme Court), didn't count.
Here's what he said:
"We ran one time and we're '1-and-0' — but it was for the big one. Now we're going to have a second time. And we're going to have another one. And then we'll drive them crazy," the president told the raucous crowd in the small town of Montoursville in central Pennsylvania.
"Maybe if we really like it a lot — and if things keep going like they're going — we'll go and we'll do what we have to do: we'll do a three and a four and a five," he added, presumably referring to subsequent terms in office.
Haha what a joker. Joking about throwing the Constitution in the trash. Yep all rallies are the same, we all remember Obama's rallies where he warned about Alabamian rapists, locking up Mitch McConnell for treason, and appointing himself dictator for life to own the conservatives.
I love that even the CHARITABLE explanation for what the Republican Party stands for under Trump is "he may be a criminal, he may be a scumbag, but he sure pisses off those liberals". And it's the left that supposedly views the right in contempt, when there is a essentially an admission at this point that the entire overarching theme of his Presidency is that his policies either a.) hurt liberals or blue states (see nearly ANY natural disaster that has taken place the last 3 years) or b.) things he does makes them feel bad. This attitude and worldview is about 1000x more contemptuous than anything even someone like me could possibly convey. An entire political party that is literally out to PUNISH and dish out retribution to the other side. Don't sit around and pretend Barack Obama, Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter ever advocated and encouraged this kind of philosophy. Because it never happened.
I love that even the CHARITABLE explanation for what the Republican Party stands for under Trump is "he may be a criminal, he may be a scumbag, but he sure pisses off those liberals". And it's the left that supposedly views the right in contempt, when there is a essentially an admission at this point that the entire overarching theme of his Presidency is that his policies either a.) hurt liberals or blue states (see nearly ANY natural disaster that has taken place the last 3 years) or b.) things he does makes them feel bad. This attitude and worldview is about 1000x more contemptuous than anything even someone like me could possibly convey. An entire political party that is literally out to PUNISH and dish out retribution to the other side. Don't sit around and pretend Barack Obama, Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter ever advocated and encouraged this kind of philosophy. Because it never happened.
"Bitter Clingers", anybody remember? Conservatives called Nazis, anybody remember? Gimme a break about the Democrats not amping up the rhetoric. I'm starting to think this relentless hysteria is going to backfire on the liberals big-time. "Vote for the Democrats or we're going to become Nazi Germany". Please! I can't stand Trump but I'm actually considering voting for his ass again unless the Republicans can find a challenger to take him out themselves. I might possibly choke on a vote for Biden but I don't think I'd vote for any of the other Democratic candidates at this point. I really don't think it's going to get any better in the next year and a half either...
So... on the one hand you can't stand Trump, but on the other hand you think his opponents exaggerate how bad he is, and that's sufficient reason to vote for Trump?
You can always to find someone being too alarmist about anything. It's not a useful data point for making decisions.
I love that even the CHARITABLE explanation for what the Republican Party stands for under Trump is "he may be a criminal, he may be a scumbag, but he sure pisses off those liberals". And it's the left that supposedly views the right in contempt, when there is a essentially an admission at this point that the entire overarching theme of his Presidency is that his policies either a.) hurt liberals or blue states (see nearly ANY natural disaster that has taken place the last 3 years) or b.) things he does makes them feel bad. This attitude and worldview is about 1000x more contemptuous than anything even someone like me could possibly convey. An entire political party that is literally out to PUNISH and dish out retribution to the other side. Don't sit around and pretend Barack Obama, Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter ever advocated and encouraged this kind of philosophy. Because it never happened.
"Bitter Clingers", anybody remember? Conservatives called Nazis, anybody remember? Gimme a break about the Democrats not amping up the rhetoric. I'm starting to think this relentless hysteria is going to backfire on the liberals big-time. "Vote for the Democrats or we're going to become Nazi Germany". Please! I can't stand Trump but I'm actually considering voting for his ass again unless the Republicans can find a challenger to take him out themselves. I might possibly choke on a vote for Biden but I don't think I'd vote for any of the other Democratic candidates at this point. I really don't think it's going to get any better in the next year and a half either...
Are you seriously implying that an off-hand comment about people clinging to their guns and religion is the same as PURPOSEFULLY threatening to withhold (or actually withhold) emergency funding from states like California during a wildfire because they didn't (collectively) vote for him?? You can't possibly believe that's the same thing. One can be viewed as slightly insulting (but is a hilarious claim from people who don't believe anyone else has a right to be offended by anything at all). The other is straight up vindictiveness as a policy position of the Executive Branch.
So... on the one hand you can't stand Trump, but on the other hand you think his opponents exaggerate how bad he is, and that's sufficient reason to vote for Trump?
You can always to find someone being too alarmist about anything. It's not a useful data point for making decisions.
It's useful enough to realize that both sides are entrenched right now and that makes it a bad time to switch sides. Polarization eradicates rationality. That's why I'm considering an irrational decision. I don't have a valid option considering I only have two choices because of our wonderful political system that nobody else seems to think is a problem (except maybe @Mathsorcerer)...
So... on the one hand you can't stand Trump, but on the other hand you think his opponents exaggerate how bad he is, and that's sufficient reason to vote for Trump?
You can always to find someone being too alarmist about anything. It's not a useful data point for making decisions.
It's useful enough to realize that both sides are entrenched right now and that makes it a bad time to switch sides. Polarization eradicates rationality. That's why I'm considering an irrational decision. I don't have a valid option considering I only have two choices because of our wonderful political system that nobody else seems to think is a problem (except maybe @Mathsorcerer)...
Considering it's been this way since 1864, I find it awfully weird that this argument about two parties is all of a sudden en vogue when it's been a fact of American political life for 155 years.
So... on the one hand you can't stand Trump, but on the other hand you think his opponents exaggerate how bad he is, and that's sufficient reason to vote for Trump?
You can always to find someone being too alarmist about anything. It's not a useful data point for making decisions.
It's useful enough to realize that both sides are entrenched right now and that makes it a bad time to switch sides. Polarization eradicates rationality. That's why I'm considering an irrational decision. I don't have a valid option considering I only have two choices because of our wonderful political system that nobody else seems to think is a problem (except maybe @Mathsorcerer)...
Considering it's been this way since 1864, I find it awfully weird that this argument about two parties is all of a sudden en vogue when it's been a fact of American political life for 155 years.
I've been bitching about it for the entire 34 years I've been able to vote and I'm not about to stop now!
So... on the one hand you can't stand Trump, but on the other hand you think his opponents exaggerate how bad he is, and that's sufficient reason to vote for Trump?
You can always to find someone being too alarmist about anything. It's not a useful data point for making decisions.
It's useful enough to realize that both sides are entrenched right now and that makes it a bad time to switch sides. Polarization eradicates rationality. That's why I'm considering an irrational decision. I don't have a valid option considering I only have two choices because of our wonderful political system that nobody else seems to think is a problem (except maybe @Mathsorcerer)...
@Balrog99 it doesn't sound like you're suggesting an irrational decision. You appear to be saying that you don't support Trump, but consider the alternative likely to be worse for the US and may therefore vote for Trump. Effectively that would be perfectly rational tactical voting.
Your comment about polarization also suggests a possibility you're concerned that peer pressure will operate to maintain existing voting patterns. Bowing to such pressure could certainly also be rational, but such a decision would be subject to change quite easily. It would be a bit like the story of the emperor's new clothes. The pressure to conform to the prevailing fiction could be enormous ... but that pressure could also reduce very quickly if a few people do choose not to conform.
The "clinging to guns and religion" is kind of weird. I always foundbit odd that people got so incensed about it. Fact is, tons of Americans do cling to guns and to religion. Proudly! Clinginess to guns and religion is basically one of the founding principle of the country. On its face, that comment is... not offensive at all.
I suppose the comment carried an implied supposition that the clinging is a reaction to circumstances; in other words, implicitly, Obama understood that the modern economy was leaving much of the country behind, and govt policy was not helping them as it is supposed to - even, in some cases, making it worse. But then, I don't know how that's offensive either, since it is literally what Trump campaigned on, and what got him votes in the "heartland."
So I guess it's the implicit suggestion that, in Obama's view, that people might not cling to guns and religion if their circumstances got better. A suggestion that people shouldn't - or really, needn't - cling to guns and religion. In essence, it's preachy. Obana was, indeed, an annoyingly preachy guy. But still: America is FULL of preachers. "Your life would be better if only you change you heart in this or that way" is more or less a constant refrain in evangelical country.
I don't know. I get that the statement was wrong, in both senses of the word. But the outrage was a bit much. And to respond by electing a New York elitist is nonsensical.
I know I literally said "Democrats have to chill" three posts above @Balrog99... but still man, some things are still worse than other things. To equate Obama's milquetoast preachiness - spoken while a candidate - with a sitting president saying that his political opponebts should be improdoned and ge has ordered the attorney general to begin a criminal investigation in orde to do so... that is seriously missing the forest for the trees.
I notice you left out commenting on conservatives being called Nazis...
The "clinging to guns and religion" is kind of weird. I always foundbit odd that people got so incensed about it. Fact is, tons of Americans do cling to guns and to religion. Proudly! Clinginess to guns and religion is basically one of the founding principle of the country. On its face, that comment is... not offensive at all.
I suppose the comment carried an implied supposition that the clinging is a reaction to circumstances; in other words, implicitly, Obama understood that the modern economy was leaving much of the country behind, and govt policy was not helping them as it is supposed to - even, in some cases, making it worse. But then, I don't know how that's offensive either, since it is literally what Trump campaigned on, and what got him votes in the "heartland."
So I guess it's the implicit suggestion that, in Obama's view, that people might not cling to guns and religion if their circumstances got better. A suggestion that people shouldn't - or really, needn't - cling to guns and religion. In essence, it's preachy. Obana was, indeed, an annoyingly preachy guy. But still: America is FULL of preachers. "Your life would be better if only you change you heart in this or that way" is more or less a constant refrain in evangelical country.
I don't know. I get that the statement was wrong, in both senses of the word. But the outrage was a bit much. And to respond by electing a New York elitist is nonsensical.
I know I literally said "Democrats have to chill" three posts above @Balrog99... but still man, some things are still worse than other things. To equate Obama's milquetoast preachiness - spoken while a candidate - with a sitting president saying that his political opponebts should be improdoned and ge has ordered the attorney general to begin a criminal investigation in orde to do so... that is seriously missing the forest for the trees.
I notice you left out commenting on conservatives being called Nazis...
Who called conservatives Nazis?
(Leaving aside actual neo-nazis, of course)
EDIT - on a different point, why do you find Biden palatable, but nobody else in the Democratic field? The field is pretty wide, and there are lots of different candidates, some of whom are probably more conservative than Biden.
I think Biden would be a route back to the relatively calmer Obama days. I'd rather vote for a Libertarian Republican than a conservative Democrat though...
I've never heard this one before but those two words do fit a large swath of Republican stereotypes: they do tend to be biter - just look at any of the frothing MAGA types at a rally and yes their two pillars are their perverted views of the Bible which are suited to towards xenophobia and other hates. And guns sure. Never heard biter clingers but yeah I could see how someone came up with it.
Let me know when it's less insulting than the names the right wing deploy against the left such as sjw, snowflake, demonrats and libruls.
Not all conservatives are Nazis but all Nazi types support conservatives, don't they? From David Duke to Richard Spencer to Steve King to all the many many others. And people want to be on this team because they don't like that people have called those people what they are? Joining with Nazis to own the libs, not because they wanted to in the first place right.
A key difference here is Dem politicians aren't saying this, heck Nancy Pelosi is dragging her feet on impeaching Trump despite Obstruction of Justice much less calling conservatives Nazis.
Gimme a break about the Democrats not amping up the rhetoric. I'm starting to think this relentless hysteria is going to backfire on the liberals big-time. "Vote for the Democrats or we're going to become Nazi Germany".
Which Democratic politicians have said this? None?
Yet Trump, head of Republican party, uses this line about Democrats. "Vote for the Republicans or we're going to become socialist Venezuela". He literally does that and his mouth breathers on TV and his politicians parrot it.
Please! I can't stand Trump but I'm actually considering voting for his ass again unless the Republicans can find a challenger to take him out themselves. I might possibly choke on a vote for Biden but I don't think I'd vote for any of the other Democratic candidates at this point. I really don't think it's going to get any better in the next year and a half either...
Yesterday... I'm fairly sure there's no democratic equivalent much less the trumped up charges he's trying to bring against the FBI for doing their job. But apparently in Trump's DOJ it is "spying" and criminal to investigate the President's people because they are above the law. This is literally the argument he's making.
Comments
Autocracy at it's budding phases is whenever somebody in power does something that you don't agree with...
Pretty sure Clinton wasn't calling for her political enemies to be put to death for treason while lying about every single facet of reality.
I never understood why so many people support wasting resources to interfere in another side of the world. Never worked and is a waste of resources. In fact, this migrant crisis is mostly done by the destabilization of middle east
Anyway, one think that i dol't understand on Bolsonaro government, is. Why he doesn't call an plebiscite to revoke all laws approved during the "bribecracy"? He can do that according to my understanding. If the population votes to nullify all of the laws who was passed via bribery, not by an normal democratic way, affirmative actions on education? draconinan mexican style gun laws? Many mandatory spending? Dysgenics via government program that increases natality between poors? A lot of regulatory agencies that only created artificial monopolies/oligopolies? All will go down in a just single strike. No, the country will not become an first world country, but will become much better.
Still will be a lot of working regulations, a lot of gun regulations, a lot of revitalization of propriety rights, but will be much better. The best constitutions in therms of quarantining personal freedom was the monarchy constitution and we should be a monarchy. The constitution after the fell of military dictatorship is a semi socialist one.
You know, I used to think that foreign meddling wasn't really the CCP's style, what with their constant complaining about the U.S. meddling in Chinese affairs. But it's becoming increasingly clear that the Chinese Communist Party has absolutely no ethical qualms about threatening other countries into serving its whims. It's alarming to see an American ally being subjected to this kind of pressure.
What happens if Trump decides he doesn't trust the election results and refuses to vacate the White House? What repercussions will happen?
What repercussions can happen if the Republican party in 2024 just declare Trump their candidate again What stops them from breaking a rule?
Carrying on as usual, will make both of these scenarios unaddressable if the country waits for them to happen before reacting.
A vegan firefighter has filed a complaint with the Humans Right Tribunal because the camp failed to abide by his ethical standards when it came to prepping his food.
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2019/05/21/is-the-right-to-vegan-food-a-human-right-ontario-firefighter-argues-that-it-is.html
I sure as hell hope he loses this case. He wasn't discriminated against because he was a vegan, he was suspended because he was being a dick. He shouldn't see a cent of Canadian tax payer dollars.
This is not possible so I would not expend any mental or emotional energy worrying about it. Sure, he may contest the results but if the verified results state that he is no longer POTUS then he will be forced to leave, even if that means that Federal Marshals and/or Secret Service agents have to carry him out.
This, also, is not possible because of the 22nd Amendment. Repealing an amendment requires a 2/3 vote of both Houses of Congress then ratification by 3/4 of the States (or, I think, a "Constitutional Convention" convened in 3/4 of the States...but don't quote me on that one); even if everyone hurried, repealing an amendment would take at least a decade.
These situations have already been addressed and, as I note, they are not possibilities which can occur in reality.
"That's impossible. There are laws that say he can't."
Let us presume for a moment that Trump feels he is the actual winner in an election he lost. Does that mean that everyone else will go along with his delusion? Of course not, which is why asking questions such as "what happens if Trump refuses to leave the White House?" is pointless.
This is already how I handle *everything*.
Depending on the specifics, I would expect many people to go along with that delusion, including Fox News and a strong majority of the Republican base. His approach, as always, would be to muddy the waters and stall, to ease people into supporting absurd positions. In this case, that would mean claiming mass voter fraud and mounting dozens of legal challenges, while making increasingly credible threats about jailing his opponent. If he can get 30% of the country firmly behind him and another 20% confused enough to "wait and see," then it's not clear what the outcome would be.
This stuff happens in other countries. I don't expect it to happen here, but it's naïve to think that it can't happen here.
He has gone farther than his "joke" that his first two years, during which time Republicans controlled all branches of government (the House of Representatives, the Senate and the Supreme Court), didn't count.
Here's what he said:
"We ran one time and we're '1-and-0' — but it was for the big one. Now we're going to have a second time. And we're going to have another one. And then we'll drive them crazy," the president told the raucous crowd in the small town of Montoursville in central Pennsylvania.
"Maybe if we really like it a lot — and if things keep going like they're going — we'll go and we'll do what we have to do: we'll do a three and a four and a five," he added, presumably referring to subsequent terms in office.
Haha what a joker. Joking about throwing the Constitution in the trash. Yep all rallies are the same, we all remember Obama's rallies where he warned about Alabamian rapists, locking up Mitch McConnell for treason, and appointing himself dictator for life to own the conservatives.
"Bitter Clingers", anybody remember? Conservatives called Nazis, anybody remember? Gimme a break about the Democrats not amping up the rhetoric. I'm starting to think this relentless hysteria is going to backfire on the liberals big-time. "Vote for the Democrats or we're going to become Nazi Germany". Please! I can't stand Trump but I'm actually considering voting for his ass again unless the Republicans can find a challenger to take him out themselves. I might possibly choke on a vote for Biden but I don't think I'd vote for any of the other Democratic candidates at this point. I really don't think it's going to get any better in the next year and a half either...
You can always to find someone being too alarmist about anything. It's not a useful data point for making decisions.
Are you seriously implying that an off-hand comment about people clinging to their guns and religion is the same as PURPOSEFULLY threatening to withhold (or actually withhold) emergency funding from states like California during a wildfire because they didn't (collectively) vote for him?? You can't possibly believe that's the same thing. One can be viewed as slightly insulting (but is a hilarious claim from people who don't believe anyone else has a right to be offended by anything at all). The other is straight up vindictiveness as a policy position of the Executive Branch.
It's useful enough to realize that both sides are entrenched right now and that makes it a bad time to switch sides. Polarization eradicates rationality. That's why I'm considering an irrational decision. I don't have a valid option considering I only have two choices because of our wonderful political system that nobody else seems to think is a problem (except maybe @Mathsorcerer)...
Considering it's been this way since 1864, I find it awfully weird that this argument about two parties is all of a sudden en vogue when it's been a fact of American political life for 155 years.
I've been bitching about it for the entire 34 years I've been able to vote and I'm not about to stop now!
@Balrog99 it doesn't sound like you're suggesting an irrational decision. You appear to be saying that you don't support Trump, but consider the alternative likely to be worse for the US and may therefore vote for Trump. Effectively that would be perfectly rational tactical voting.
Your comment about polarization also suggests a possibility you're concerned that peer pressure will operate to maintain existing voting patterns. Bowing to such pressure could certainly also be rational, but such a decision would be subject to change quite easily. It would be a bit like the story of the emperor's new clothes. The pressure to conform to the prevailing fiction could be enormous ... but that pressure could also reduce very quickly if a few people do choose not to conform.
I notice you left out commenting on conservatives being called Nazis...
I think Biden would be a route back to the relatively calmer Obama days. I'd rather vote for a Libertarian Republican than a conservative Democrat though...
Let me know when it's less insulting than the names the right wing deploy against the left such as sjw, snowflake, demonrats and libruls.
Not all conservatives are Nazis but all Nazi types support conservatives, don't they? From David Duke to Richard Spencer to Steve King to all the many many others. And people want to be on this team because they don't like that people have called those people what they are? Joining with Nazis to own the libs, not because they wanted to in the first place right.
A key difference here is Dem politicians aren't saying this, heck Nancy Pelosi is dragging her feet on impeaching Trump despite Obstruction of Justice much less calling conservatives Nazis.
Which Democratic politicians have said this? None?
Yet Trump, head of Republican party, uses this line about Democrats. "Vote for the Republicans or we're going to become socialist Venezuela". He literally does that and his mouth breathers on TV and his politicians parrot it.
Voting for Trump to own the libs...