Heya @Mathsorcerer!
I'm glad you're back so you got that going for you...
I figured out my problem last time though--I was here *too much*. Staying in this thread on a daily basis is not good for anyone's emotional health regardless of where on a political spectrum one might find oneself.
Having a differing opinion is fine, but when your differing opinion results in people painting you as being a member of the dregs of humanity or of having the worst of all possible motives then that is your clue to disappear for a while. On the other forum, where I am the mod of this section (current events/politics), there is one user who thinks that we (over there) are the majority. I keep telling him that the vast majority of social media platforms and discussions boards lean pretty far to the Left, but he does not believe me. I can only conclude that he does not frequent many boards.
Heya @Mathsorcerer!
I'm glad you're back so you got that going for you...
I figured out my problem last time though--I was here *too much*. Staying in this thread on a daily basis is not good for anyone's emotional health regardless of where on a political spectrum one might find oneself.
Having a differing opinion is fine, but when your differing opinion results in people painting you as being a member of the dregs of humanity or of having the worst of all possible motives then that is your clue to disappear for a while. On the other forum, where I am the mod of this section (current events/politics), there is one user who thinks that we (over there) are the majority. I keep telling him that the vast majority of social media platforms and discussions boards lean pretty far to the Left, but he does not believe me. I can only conclude that he does not frequent many boards.
Well I have a pretty thick skin and stand closer to the center so I'm not put off by the attacks on the right as much as some are. I'm actually leaning a bit towards Bernie this time to tell the truth. I don't think he's going to get much, if any, of his agenda passed but I do like a little chaos to shake things up once in a while. Besides, the Democratic Party establishment seems genuinely scared of him and I'd kind of like to find out why...
Truthfully, without Hillary around Sanders might actually stand a chance this time, his current squabble with Warren notwithstanding. Biden is still in the lead--barely--but, let's be truthful, he could not remember Soleimani's name at the debate and that still has to be one of the top 5 political news stories at this time.
If I were a Democrat I probably would have been backing Booker--he said several things at each debate which made sense. My advice to Sanders would be "reach out to Booker for VP if you get the nomination". My advice to Democrats in general is this: if you want to beat Trump, then once you pick your nominee at your national convention immediately put aside all internal bickering and close ranks. I guarantee you that the other side will close ranks, even if they are holding their noses to do so.
No, we have already enacted measures here to make certain that the progressives immigrating here, seeking to ruin this land like they ruined their original land--like a plague of locusts--
Having a differing opinion is fine, but when your differing opinion results in people painting you as being a member of the dregs of humanity or of having the worst of all possible motives then that is your clue to disappear for a while.
Where is the confusion? Californians are of the opinion that higher taxes and more restrictive environmental regulations are good things; I will argue against such things but I will not actively try to change their mind. By the same token, I do not agree with those things and approve of measures taken to make sure those sorts of laws cannot be enacted here. "Having a differing opinion" and "respecting someone else's opinion" does not equal "they get to enact the legislation they want"...unless they can scrape up the votes for it and a court doesn't strike it down.
Now...because I do not agree with California's type of environmental regulations I have been called "hateful" and "a proponent of climate abuse" (not here, but elsewhere). This is really odd because I typically advocate for a lot more use of solar power (I have to track the numbers down, but if we cover about 1.5% of the Earth's surface in modern, effieicnt panels we can meet the current global demand for electricity without needing to burn anything, except for some token generation here and there) and wind power (if you have some land, then put up a turbine and feed the grid, either the grid as a whole or your own). *shrug* It is what it is.
But, no--I don't like California, I am not going to change my mind, and I am not going to apologize for it.
Where is the confusion? Californians are of the opinion that higher taxes and more restrictive environmental regulations are good things; I will argue against such things but I will not actively try to change their mind. By the same token, I do not agree with those things and approve of measures taken to make sure those sorts of laws cannot be enacted here. "Having a differing opinion" and "respecting someone else's opinion" does not equal "they get to enact the legislation they want"...unless they can scrape up the votes for it and a court doesn't strike it down.
Now...because I do not agree with California's type of environmental regulations I have been called "hateful" and "a proponent of climate abuse" (not here, but elsewhere). This is really odd because I typically advocate for a lot more use of solar power (I have to track the numbers down, but if we cover about 1.5% of the Earth's surface in modern, effieicnt panels we can meet the current global demand for electricity without needing to burn anything, except for some token generation here and there) and wind power (if you have some land, then put up a turbine and feed the grid, either the grid as a whole or your own). *shrug* It is what it is.
But, no--I don't like California, I am not going to change my mind, and I am not going to apologize for it.
I think you'll find my point was that you simultaneously dont want to be painted as the "Dregs of society" and as though you have the "worst of all possible motives", but also likened progressives in California as a scourge of locusts trying to destroy the land.
You've done to a group of people the very thing that you just said you dont want done to yourself. Suggested they're awful (Scourge of locusts is pretty damning) and claimed their motive is to ruin your land (Which is pretty close to the worst motive I can think of).
No one is asking you to apologize. No one thinks you have to change your mind. Dont be surprised though when someone points out that you're being hypocritical.
Let's step away from this tangent before we get into a semantic debate. I think folks have made their points clear; we do not need to dissect them.
Spoilsport...
Rock 'em sock 'em debate used to be the norm in politics. Another symptom of 'political correctness' is everybody has to hide behind 'politeness'. I'm really hoping to see a Trump vs. Sanders debate. I think that would be a real hoot.
I found an interesting article when I searched 'Trump vs dishwashers'. Apparently the new light bulbs are why he looks orange too. Who would've thought...
I found an interesting article when I searched 'Trump vs dishwashers'. Apparently the new light bulbs are why he looks orange too. Who would've thought...
Mystifing how anyone can listen to him for 5 minutes and not realize a) he's lying and b) dumb.
He's said plenty of other dumb things like a hurricane is wet from a standpoint of water and so on. And he altered a weather map with a sharpie to pretend Alabama was in the path of a hurricane. And this is the guy who almost got us into a war with Iran and caused turmoil resulting in a plane crash that left (among other things) 65 dead Canadians?
I found an interesting article when I searched 'Trump vs dishwashers'. Apparently the new light bulbs are why he looks orange too. Who would've thought...
Mystifing how anyone can listen to him for 5 minutes and not realize a) he's lying and b) dumb.
He's said plenty of other dumb things like a hurricane is wet from a standpoint of water and so on. And he altered a weather map with a sharpie to pretend Alabama was in the path of a hurricane. And this is the guy who almost got us into a war with Iran and caused turmoil resulting in a plane crash that left (among other things) 65 dead Canadians?
Dumb, I don't think so. Crazy like a fox maybe. He knows how to manipulate people and knows when 'rules' are a sham. I'm not saying he's a genius but he's certainly not dumb...
I found an interesting article when I searched 'Trump vs dishwashers'. Apparently the new light bulbs are why he looks orange too. Who would've thought...
Mystifing how anyone can listen to him for 5 minutes and not realize a) he's lying and b) dumb.
He's said plenty of other dumb things like a hurricane is wet from a standpoint of water and so on. And he altered a weather map with a sharpie to pretend Alabama was in the path of a hurricane. And this is the guy who almost got us into a war with Iran and caused turmoil resulting in a plane crash that left (among other things) 65 dead Canadians?
Dumb, I don't think so. Crazy like a fox maybe. He knows how to manipulate people and knows when 'rules' are a sham. I'm not saying he's a genius but he's certainly not dumb...
I know what he's "getting at" with the lightbulb and dishwasher thing. He's making people pretend they give a shit that lightbulbs don't look the same way they did 50 years ago (as if anyone has an emotional attachment to something they do once every 6 months, hate doing, and usually never have on hand anyway). The dishwasher thing is the same, except there isn't anyone who is washing their dishes in a dishwasher 10 times. If you are, you either don't know what you're doing (and with a dishwasher that is stunning indeed) or your fucking machine is broken. Trump is getting people to, again (and I use this word on purpose) PRETEND that liberals are somehow having a material effect on their household appliances. Everyone knows deep down this isn't true. Literally NO ONE in the country was thinking this about dishwashers before he started talking about it. But blaming liberals for things that aren't even happening is more fun than living in reality, so they choose that option.
Side note: prices of dishwashers have skyrocketed due to his Chinese steel tariffs. EVERYTHING is projection.
Let's step away from this tangent before we get into a semantic debate. I think folks have made their points clear; we do not need to dissect them.
Spoilsport...
Rock 'em sock 'em debate used to be the norm in politics. Another symptom of 'political correctness' is everybody has to hide behind 'politeness'. I'm really hoping to see a Trump vs. Sanders debate. I think that would be a real hoot.
"Let them fight!"
(as long as it doesn't get personal)
If there's one thing you can guarantee it's that, once politeness is discarded, it always gets personal .
That's why so many people voted for Putin, Erdogan, Orban, to name a few.
That part of the masses won't be swayed by logic, or complicated politics,
You say I'm twisting your words, but all I see is another ridiculous caricature. I'm sure you are sincere, but it just goes to show how little understanding, to say nothing of empathy, the left has for the right.
Just say you think I'm dumb, no need to use so many words to explain it. My poor brain can't take such complicated things.
I've read this post after my apology, I didn't see it before.
Since I'm not assuming anymore, let me put something right, just in case you really thought I was attacking you or implying that all who voted for Trump are dumb or easily impressed.
I never meant to say that.
What I mean is that a part of the voters think as I described in my last post, impressed by the "make America great again" stuff, keeping out immigrants, that kind of thing. Not because they're bad or dumb people, but because they worry about their everyday problems, like their job and their kids and don't have an interest in politics.
People who follow such propaganda probably won't vote for a woman as another candidate (that's where my argument started, at "is it sexist to say that a woman can't beat Trump"). That was the context.
There are certainly people who voted for Trump because they always vote Republican.
There were people who voted for Trump because of Clinton's history.
There were people who voted for Trump because Clinton lacks human warmth and charm on TV and comes across as cold and rational.
There were people who voted for Trump because Clinton stands for"the establishment".
And there are people with interest and background information in politics who genuinely preferred his political views to hers.
(Edit: and the list is meant to name a few reasons only. I'm sure there are more).
*And* there were those that I mentioned, who vote for the strong, confident devil-may-care guy who gives them a feeling of strength and safety in an unpredictable and dangerous world. (Not saying he really represents that!) Those people might be swayed by a strong, confident figure as the other candidate, but probably not by a woman (because the attitude I see in politicians like him, in many European countries too, seems to be more frequent in male politicians.)
I hope I've made my point clearer now. If this post was just a waste of time, so be it, but just in case someone really felt offended and thought I might imply all who voted for Trump were either dumb or sexist or whatever else, I felt the need to put it right.
I know I should have kept to my "in politics threads, just read, don't comment" rule. I hate being misunderstood .
I thought 2016 taught everyone not to place faith in polls. It appears that I was mistaken.
I have two questions about voters for this coming November. 1) What percentage of likely voters are still undecided? 2) *How* can they be "undecided" with everything they have seen from various news sources, even if we consider only the last year?
The Electoral College is the system we have; no individual person has to like it but they certainly have to live with it and candidates must take it into account. Without it, they need to campain only in the 13 most populous States to win the election, completely ignoring the rest of the nation--how, exactly, would that be "fair"? Incidentally, in order to get rid of the Electoral College would necessitate a Constitutional Amendment--even if there were enough support for such a move and we started on it today it would still probably take 10 years to become ratified.
this map of the results[/url]. Now, look at Nevada--Clark County decides how the States votes under the Electoral College, so only Las Vegas and its suburbs matter. The same is true for States like Illinois, where Cook County and its 5 neighbors decide the results; the rest of the State is irrelevant. If we look at New York most of the State is red, but who cares since NYC *is* the State? Only in the swing states do we get scenarios where the population centers don't outweigh the rest of the State. I agree that it is weird but no one would have been able to foresee how our population would have settled itself.
I never mind a dissenting opinion. Yes, in a non-EC system each person's vote counts the same, which means that how politicians approach States will be different than it is now. We will need to figure out exactly how things will work should the EC go away; however, since we still have the EC we must deal with the situation as it exists. As noted, the same four or five States will decide the election later this year just like they have the last five or six election cycles.
I continue to beat my drum for the removal of "winner-take-all". It accomplishes MOST of "one person, one vote" popular election, small population states are still mostly weighted, and does not require a constitutional amendment.
And oh yeah, it satisfies those people outraged that "them big librul states will always win". Because it's not about the STATES any more, it's about how many people in each state vote which way.
erm....we *are* 50 separate countries. It says so in the Preamble, which concludes "the United States of America". The Federal Government's job is to manage the military, offer postal services, deal with foreign nations, and settle disputes between States. Everything else is crap we have manufactured out of thin air since then--Department of the Interior? That isn't in the Constitution. Federal Reserve? Nope, not there either. War Powers Act and Patriot Act? Those are *definitely* not in there.
And yet, "promote the general welfare" is ALSO in the Preamble you specifically mention.
Does anyone have any insight into what's going on in Russia (@Ardanis perhaps)? The government there has resigned en masse in response to Putin's proposals to change the constitution (they're still acting in post at the moment though.
The constitutional changes themselves seem designed to facilitate Putin exercising some form of continuing power when his presidency runs out in 2024, so there's no surprise there.
The resignations certainly don't appear to be a protest though and normally Putin is very keen on at least the appearance of stability - so it would seem out of character for him to have initiated this. The suggested explanation is that he's trying to get rid of an unpopular government and bring in new faces to help with the transition to a new constitution. This just seems a rather clumsy way to go about that if that is his aim though, so I'm open to other suggestions ...
Apparently there is another migrant caravan forming in Honduras and is beginning to head north. Sadly, many of these people are going to fall victim to the cartels, either via conscription into service or being trafficked, and will never actually make it to the border. Mexico still has a significant problem in its northern districts and their number one stumbling block is corruption--a lot of local police and politicians in those areas are on cartel payrolls.
Medvedev, along with the entirety of "the Russian Government", which I presume really just means "Cabinet-level Ministers", have all resigned after Putin proposed some "reforms" which would extend his ability to remain in power after his current term is over. Don't forget that Putin's career started as a KBG officer under the old CCCP; this is just "business as usual" for him. I am surprised this isn't making more news than it is, though.
Any bets on how long the Senate will debate before holding the vote on impeachment, which will decide not to remove Trump from office? I am going with "three weeks" and they might even call a handful of witnesses, even though they are not required to do so. Some people are also upset about how the Senate is handling media coverage of the trial portion, as well. Given that there is no Consitutional requirement to allow any media in the chamber whatsoever, any media personnel who are allowed to be present should be thankful to be allowed in.
After accusing the House of rushing through the process (while complaining the Democrats have been trying to oust Trump since he won), the Senate will rush through the Trial part and make sure Trump is acquitted prior to his State of the Union address.
Given that there is no Consitutional requirement to allow any media in the chamber whatsoever, any media personnel who are allowed to be present should be thankful to be allowed in.
Really?? There aren't "constitutional requirements" for nearly any specific single thing that one can mention. What kind of attitude is this?? We should be THANKFUL that those in power MIGHT let us see what transpires?? I'm half expecting you to suggest that if people are interested in seeing what happens, they should take the initiative to drive to DC and hope they get a seat in the Senate gallery.
Meanwhile, while the media focuses on a meaningless spat between Warren and Sanders, Giuliani's bag-man has directly implicated the entire Executive Branch in what transpired in multiple interviews. Which is part of the problem with defending Trump. They are constantly sure that this is the last storm that will have to be weathered, and not realizing that the corruption and abuse of power is SO deep that there will always be another shoe that drops.
An impeachment trial seems like one of the absolute most important things to be open to view by the press and the people. The United States is not the Politburo; our government is supposed to be open and transparent. I see no reason why people shouldn't be allowed to observe the decisions of our own government. It's not like this would endanger national security in any way.
The Senate is restricting media access to the trial because they plan on acquitting Trump no matter what, and they want as few Americans as possible to see them disregard the case in front of them. It's not like the motive behind this move is really open to interpretation.
Does anyone have any insight into what's going on in Russia (@Ardanis perhaps)? The government there has resigned en masse in response to Putin's proposals to change the constitution (they're still acting in post at the moment though.
The constitutional changes themselves seem designed to facilitate Putin exercising some form of continuing power when his presidency runs out in 2024, so there's no surprise there.
The resignations certainly don't appear to be a protest though and normally Putin is very keen on at least the appearance of stability - so it would seem out of character for him to have initiated this. The suggested explanation is that he's trying to get rid of an unpopular government and bring in new faces to help with the transition to a new constitution. This just seems a rather clumsy way to go about that if that is his aim though, so I'm open to other suggestions ...
You are quite correct - it is a clumsy attempt at best, at least for anyone following Russian politics I, for one, am already spotting three big anti-internet names in the newly formed group that will work on preparing adjustments to Constitution. I'll be hardly surprised if I lose access to this forum sooner than I get banned here, because a couple morons with shit for brains decide it won't do for a good Russian citizen to be exposed to unsafety of international web.
Let's step away from this tangent before we get into a semantic debate. I think folks have made their points clear; we do not need to dissect them.
Spoilsport...
Rock 'em sock 'em debate used to be the norm in politics. Another symptom of 'political correctness' is everybody has to hide behind 'politeness'. I'm really hoping to see a Trump vs. Sanders debate. I think that would be a real hoot.
"Let them fight!"
(as long as it doesn't get personal)
When I was a kid, "political correctness" was just called "manners" and everyone was expected to use them.
When I was a kid, "political correctness" was just called "manners" and everyone was expected to use them.
A lot of time has passed since you were a kid...
Yeah, now being openly racist is okay again. So much for the last 20 years of civil rights.
You keep using that word, racist. I don't think it means what you think it does :rolleyes:
Anyway, nevermind me, I only dropped in to respond to Grond's ping
There is, in fact, a reason the "political correctness" debate is almost entirely focused and fought online. And that reason is that if people talked like the do online in public, or expressed those opinions, there would be, at a bare minimum, shouting matches in the dairy section at grocery stores, and fistfights in the checkout line. Imagine if we lived in a world where everyone just said what they were thinking at any given moment without taking into account their surroundings or the context of the situation they were in. Actually you can find places where this happens. It's usually at a bar anywhere from 11pm-2am. You can call it manners, you can call it self-control, you can call if emotional maturity. Call it whatever you want. But it's what allows 300 million mostly total strangers to live next to each other. And it has nothing to do with free speech. It's called reading a room.
Given that there is no Consitutional requirement to allow any media in the chamber whatsoever, any media personnel who are allowed to be present should be thankful to be allowed in.
Really?? There aren't "constitutional requirements" for nearly any specific single thing that one can mention. What kind of attitude is this?? We should be THANKFUL that those in power MIGHT let us see what transpires?? I'm half expecting you to suggest that if people are interested in seeing what happens, they should take the initiative to drive to DC and hope they get a seat in the Senate gallery.
You misunderstand me, which seems to be a common problem here--ascribing the worst motives to me. I did not say I agreed with that decision or point of view, but as a matter of *fact* the Senate is not required by the Constitution to allow media access to its chamber. The Congressional Record, which is a written transcript of everything said on the floor of both the House and the Senate, is open to the public and available for us to view--or download, these days--at any time. Allowing media into the chamber merely makes the job of looking in on them easier...but it isn't a requirement. Both the House and the Senate are allowed to close their doors to the media whenever they feel like it--remember all those "closed to the media" committee hearings before the full vote for impeachment?
We *should* have access to watch the trial, but they don't *have* to allow it to be broadcast.
I concur--everyone already knows how the vote in the Senate is going to turn out just like we knew how the vote in the House would turn out, with the single exception of Gabbard voting "present".
When I was a kid, "political correctness" was just called "manners" and everyone was expected to use them.
"Political correctness" dictates that we refer to people like Maxine Waters as "African-American Member of Congress" as opposed to "black Member of Congress", even though she is a member of the Congressional Black Caucus which uses the word "black" in its name. On a side note, Ms. Waters is about as "African" as I am, which is another way of saying "not at all". On another side note, Members of Congress who are not black are not allowed to join the CBC--several Hispanic Members have tried--because they do not have the qualifying skin color, which is the very textbook definition of "racism".
*Manners* dictates that we not refer to Ms. Waters with any hateful perjorative, but always refer to her as "Ms." (or "Mrs.", depending upon her preference) or "Representative", given that she has earned that honorific by virtue of winning a political election.
Everyone *should* maintain manners at all times but "political correctness" is a matter of personal choice.
Unlike @jjstraka34 , I think everyone *should* say *exactly* what they are thinking and feeling at any given time, regardless of the circumstances. Being as asshole--apologies for the word--is not something we can identify by sight, so unless those people reveal themselves via their words we can never figure out who they are and avoid them like the plague.
*************
The GAO has issued a "legal opinion" stating that Trump broke the law by withholding the aid designated to Ukraine. For the sake of discussion, let us put aside the fact that Ukraine received the aid before the legal deadline, and instead ask the question: should not the time to release that opinion have been while impeachment hearings were being conducted in the House? Does the GAO not think that the House Judiciary Committee would have taken that opinion into consideration? They would have loved that opinion since it bolstered their case.
Still, this is only a legal opinion. Good luck convincing AG Barr to prosecute based on that opinion in an election year.
Let's put our cards on the table here. This Administration, at the direction of Donald Trump, based on all available evidence and testimony, illegally withheld Congressionally appropriated funds (taxpayer money) and used it to attempt to extort a foreign country for the EXPLICIT purpose of advancing Trump's own re-election by essentially demanding they perform a political hit on who Trump views as his main rival in 2020. The entire upper apparatus of the Executive Branch was involved. The President, the Vice-President, the Chief of Staff, the Secretary of State, and the Attorney General. To say nothing of attempting to bury the whistleblower report that allowed us to find out about it. This is such a fundamental abuse of power and betrayal of the democratic process that it almost defies belief. If this is going to be permissible, then there are literally NO limits to what kind of actions can be taken to advance power. We might as well burn every guidline and law we have.
Did Ukraine receive the aid before the legal deadline set for them to receive the aid? Yes? Then the GAO's "legal opinion" is just that--an opinion. As I asked, though, why did the GAO wait until now to release this opinion? Clearly, they are seeking to influence the Senate trial in a political manner.
edit/add: never mind--I found the answer to my own question. The Senate approved its part of the USMCA just before officially receiving the Articles of Impeachment, so Trump opponents are trying to make some noise so that he does not get any "wins" regardless of the cost. Mexico already approved it but the holdup now will be Canada--if I recall, their Parliament dissolved so all pending legislation got canceled, which means they will have to reintroduce it.
Comments
I figured out my problem last time though--I was here *too much*. Staying in this thread on a daily basis is not good for anyone's emotional health regardless of where on a political spectrum one might find oneself.
Having a differing opinion is fine, but when your differing opinion results in people painting you as being a member of the dregs of humanity or of having the worst of all possible motives then that is your clue to disappear for a while. On the other forum, where I am the mod of this section (current events/politics), there is one user who thinks that we (over there) are the majority. I keep telling him that the vast majority of social media platforms and discussions boards lean pretty far to the Left, but he does not believe me. I can only conclude that he does not frequent many boards.
Well I have a pretty thick skin and stand closer to the center so I'm not put off by the attacks on the right as much as some are. I'm actually leaning a bit towards Bernie this time to tell the truth. I don't think he's going to get much, if any, of his agenda passed but I do like a little chaos to shake things up once in a while. Besides, the Democratic Party establishment seems genuinely scared of him and I'd kind of like to find out why...
If I were a Democrat I probably would have been backing Booker--he said several things at each debate which made sense. My advice to Sanders would be "reach out to Booker for VP if you get the nomination". My advice to Democrats in general is this: if you want to beat Trump, then once you pick your nominee at your national convention immediately put aside all internal bickering and close ranks. I guarantee you that the other side will close ranks, even if they are holding their noses to do so.
plus this
= head scratch?
Now...because I do not agree with California's type of environmental regulations I have been called "hateful" and "a proponent of climate abuse" (not here, but elsewhere). This is really odd because I typically advocate for a lot more use of solar power (I have to track the numbers down, but if we cover about 1.5% of the Earth's surface in modern, effieicnt panels we can meet the current global demand for electricity without needing to burn anything, except for some token generation here and there) and wind power (if you have some land, then put up a turbine and feed the grid, either the grid as a whole or your own). *shrug* It is what it is.
But, no--I don't like California, I am not going to change my mind, and I am not going to apologize for it.
I think you'll find my point was that you simultaneously dont want to be painted as the "Dregs of society" and as though you have the "worst of all possible motives", but also likened progressives in California as a scourge of locusts trying to destroy the land.
You've done to a group of people the very thing that you just said you dont want done to yourself. Suggested they're awful (Scourge of locusts is pretty damning) and claimed their motive is to ruin your land (Which is pretty close to the worst motive I can think of).
No one is asking you to apologize. No one thinks you have to change your mind. Dont be surprised though when someone points out that you're being hypocritical.
Spoilsport...
Rock 'em sock 'em debate used to be the norm in politics. Another symptom of 'political correctness' is everybody has to hide behind 'politeness'. I'm really hoping to see a Trump vs. Sanders debate. I think that would be a real hoot.
"Let them fight!"
(as long as it doesn't get personal)
I found an interesting article when I searched 'Trump vs dishwashers'. Apparently the new light bulbs are why he looks orange too. Who would've thought...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/trump-rants-about-dishwasher-lightbulbs-at-milwaukee-rally-2020-1
Mystifing how anyone can listen to him for 5 minutes and not realize a) he's lying and b) dumb.
He's said plenty of other dumb things like a hurricane is wet from a standpoint of water and so on. And he altered a weather map with a sharpie to pretend Alabama was in the path of a hurricane. And this is the guy who almost got us into a war with Iran and caused turmoil resulting in a plane crash that left (among other things) 65 dead Canadians?
Dumb, I don't think so. Crazy like a fox maybe. He knows how to manipulate people and knows when 'rules' are a sham. I'm not saying he's a genius but he's certainly not dumb...
I know what he's "getting at" with the lightbulb and dishwasher thing. He's making people pretend they give a shit that lightbulbs don't look the same way they did 50 years ago (as if anyone has an emotional attachment to something they do once every 6 months, hate doing, and usually never have on hand anyway). The dishwasher thing is the same, except there isn't anyone who is washing their dishes in a dishwasher 10 times. If you are, you either don't know what you're doing (and with a dishwasher that is stunning indeed) or your fucking machine is broken. Trump is getting people to, again (and I use this word on purpose) PRETEND that liberals are somehow having a material effect on their household appliances. Everyone knows deep down this isn't true. Literally NO ONE in the country was thinking this about dishwashers before he started talking about it. But blaming liberals for things that aren't even happening is more fun than living in reality, so they choose that option.
Side note: prices of dishwashers have skyrocketed due to his Chinese steel tariffs. EVERYTHING is projection.
If there's one thing you can guarantee it's that, once politeness is discarded, it always gets personal
I've read this post after my apology, I didn't see it before.
Since I'm not assuming anymore, let me put something right, just in case you really thought I was attacking you or implying that all who voted for Trump are dumb or easily impressed.
I never meant to say that.
What I mean is that a part of the voters think as I described in my last post, impressed by the "make America great again" stuff, keeping out immigrants, that kind of thing. Not because they're bad or dumb people, but because they worry about their everyday problems, like their job and their kids and don't have an interest in politics.
People who follow such propaganda probably won't vote for a woman as another candidate (that's where my argument started, at "is it sexist to say that a woman can't beat Trump"). That was the context.
There are certainly people who voted for Trump because they always vote Republican.
There were people who voted for Trump because of Clinton's history.
There were people who voted for Trump because Clinton lacks human warmth and charm on TV and comes across as cold and rational.
There were people who voted for Trump because Clinton stands for"the establishment".
And there are people with interest and background information in politics who genuinely preferred his political views to hers.
(Edit: and the list is meant to name a few reasons only. I'm sure there are more).
*And* there were those that I mentioned, who vote for the strong, confident devil-may-care guy who gives them a feeling of strength and safety in an unpredictable and dangerous world. (Not saying he really represents that!) Those people might be swayed by a strong, confident figure as the other candidate, but probably not by a woman (because the attitude I see in politicians like him, in many European countries too, seems to be more frequent in male politicians.)
I hope I've made my point clearer now. If this post was just a waste of time, so be it, but just in case someone really felt offended and thought I might imply all who voted for Trump were either dumb or sexist or whatever else, I felt the need to put it right.
I know I should have kept to my "in politics threads, just read, don't comment" rule. I hate being misunderstood
I continue to beat my drum for the removal of "winner-take-all". It accomplishes MOST of "one person, one vote" popular election, small population states are still mostly weighted, and does not require a constitutional amendment.
And oh yeah, it satisfies those people outraged that "them big librul states will always win". Because it's not about the STATES any more, it's about how many people in each state vote which way.
And yet, "promote the general welfare" is ALSO in the Preamble you specifically mention.
The constitutional changes themselves seem designed to facilitate Putin exercising some form of continuing power when his presidency runs out in 2024, so there's no surprise there.
The resignations certainly don't appear to be a protest though and normally Putin is very keen on at least the appearance of stability - so it would seem out of character for him to have initiated this. The suggested explanation is that he's trying to get rid of an unpopular government and bring in new faces to help with the transition to a new constitution. This just seems a rather clumsy way to go about that if that is his aim though, so I'm open to other suggestions ...
Medvedev, along with the entirety of "the Russian Government", which I presume really just means "Cabinet-level Ministers", have all resigned after Putin proposed some "reforms" which would extend his ability to remain in power after his current term is over. Don't forget that Putin's career started as a KBG officer under the old CCCP; this is just "business as usual" for him. I am surprised this isn't making more news than it is, though.
Any bets on how long the Senate will debate before holding the vote on impeachment, which will decide not to remove Trump from office? I am going with "three weeks" and they might even call a handful of witnesses, even though they are not required to do so. Some people are also upset about how the Senate is handling media coverage of the trial portion, as well. Given that there is no Consitutional requirement to allow any media in the chamber whatsoever, any media personnel who are allowed to be present should be thankful to be allowed in.
After accusing the House of rushing through the process (while complaining the Democrats have been trying to oust Trump since he won), the Senate will rush through the Trial part and make sure Trump is acquitted prior to his State of the Union address.
Really?? There aren't "constitutional requirements" for nearly any specific single thing that one can mention. What kind of attitude is this?? We should be THANKFUL that those in power MIGHT let us see what transpires?? I'm half expecting you to suggest that if people are interested in seeing what happens, they should take the initiative to drive to DC and hope they get a seat in the Senate gallery.
Meanwhile, while the media focuses on a meaningless spat between Warren and Sanders, Giuliani's bag-man has directly implicated the entire Executive Branch in what transpired in multiple interviews. Which is part of the problem with defending Trump. They are constantly sure that this is the last storm that will have to be weathered, and not realizing that the corruption and abuse of power is SO deep that there will always be another shoe that drops.
The Senate is restricting media access to the trial because they plan on acquitting Trump no matter what, and they want as few Americans as possible to see them disregard the case in front of them. It's not like the motive behind this move is really open to interpretation.
When I was a kid, "political correctness" was just called "manners" and everyone was expected to use them.
Yeah, now being openly racist is okay again. So much for the last 20 years of civil rights.
Anyway, nevermind me, I only dropped in to respond to Grond's ping
You misunderstand me, which seems to be a common problem here--ascribing the worst motives to me. I did not say I agreed with that decision or point of view, but as a matter of *fact* the Senate is not required by the Constitution to allow media access to its chamber. The Congressional Record, which is a written transcript of everything said on the floor of both the House and the Senate, is open to the public and available for us to view--or download, these days--at any time. Allowing media into the chamber merely makes the job of looking in on them easier...but it isn't a requirement. Both the House and the Senate are allowed to close their doors to the media whenever they feel like it--remember all those "closed to the media" committee hearings before the full vote for impeachment?
We *should* have access to watch the trial, but they don't *have* to allow it to be broadcast.
I concur--everyone already knows how the vote in the Senate is going to turn out just like we knew how the vote in the House would turn out, with the single exception of Gabbard voting "present".
"Political correctness" dictates that we refer to people like Maxine Waters as "African-American Member of Congress" as opposed to "black Member of Congress", even though she is a member of the Congressional Black Caucus which uses the word "black" in its name. On a side note, Ms. Waters is about as "African" as I am, which is another way of saying "not at all". On another side note, Members of Congress who are not black are not allowed to join the CBC--several Hispanic Members have tried--because they do not have the qualifying skin color, which is the very textbook definition of "racism".
*Manners* dictates that we not refer to Ms. Waters with any hateful perjorative, but always refer to her as "Ms." (or "Mrs.", depending upon her preference) or "Representative", given that she has earned that honorific by virtue of winning a political election.
Everyone *should* maintain manners at all times but "political correctness" is a matter of personal choice.
Unlike @jjstraka34 , I think everyone *should* say *exactly* what they are thinking and feeling at any given time, regardless of the circumstances. Being as asshole--apologies for the word--is not something we can identify by sight, so unless those people reveal themselves via their words we can never figure out who they are and avoid them like the plague.
*************
The GAO has issued a "legal opinion" stating that Trump broke the law by withholding the aid designated to Ukraine. For the sake of discussion, let us put aside the fact that Ukraine received the aid before the legal deadline, and instead ask the question: should not the time to release that opinion have been while impeachment hearings were being conducted in the House? Does the GAO not think that the House Judiciary Committee would have taken that opinion into consideration? They would have loved that opinion since it bolstered their case.
Still, this is only a legal opinion. Good luck convincing AG Barr to prosecute based on that opinion in an election year.
Let's put our cards on the table here. This Administration, at the direction of Donald Trump, based on all available evidence and testimony, illegally withheld Congressionally appropriated funds (taxpayer money) and used it to attempt to extort a foreign country for the EXPLICIT purpose of advancing Trump's own re-election by essentially demanding they perform a political hit on who Trump views as his main rival in 2020. The entire upper apparatus of the Executive Branch was involved. The President, the Vice-President, the Chief of Staff, the Secretary of State, and the Attorney General. To say nothing of attempting to bury the whistleblower report that allowed us to find out about it. This is such a fundamental abuse of power and betrayal of the democratic process that it almost defies belief. If this is going to be permissible, then there are literally NO limits to what kind of actions can be taken to advance power. We might as well burn every guidline and law we have.
edit/add: never mind--I found the answer to my own question. The Senate approved its part of the USMCA just before officially receiving the Articles of Impeachment, so Trump opponents are trying to make some noise so that he does not get any "wins" regardless of the cost. Mexico already approved it but the holdup now will be Canada--if I recall, their Parliament dissolved so all pending legislation got canceled, which means they will have to reintroduce it.