Skip to content

The Politics Thread

1402403405407408694

Comments

  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,366
    edited December 2019
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    Trump wants to run for a third term and people are farting around as Democracy is dying.

    So Trump can win without an election? Democracy is dying because somebody you don't agree with 'might' try for a 3rd term before he even wins a second? I'm not seeing it...

    And you don't see your sides assaults on freedom - the press, religion, the military, basic facts and reality, democracy, voting rights. The unending corruption and self dealing.

    The Democratic party gets the most votes. It is literally more popular.

    I see it. I'm not blind. I also see a very ineffective way of combating it that's just entrenching people. Pelosi was outplayed by her own party zealots who wanted impeachment. I think it was a very bad move but I'm not sure she had a choice because of our shitty two party dynamic. We're all being led by the noisy, rigid, uncompromising extremists and it's getting us nowhere.

    Right, because I'm sure you and every other conservative would have thought it was hunky dory if Barack Obama, in the Summer of 2015, was caught withholding money approved by Congress to go to an ally, but held it up until he was assured there would be an announcement of an investigation of Mitt Romney's son. Then disappeared the transcript of said phone call into a super-secret server never to be seen again, and then flat-out REFUSED to produce witnesses and documents to Congress.

    Fine. Let's make this the new normal. Everything is fair game. No rules whatsoever. There is literally nothing anything anyone can do that is out of bounds. Except we all KNOW the moment the tables turned, you and everyone else on that side of the aisle would immediately flip your position. I swear to god, if Nixon was President now instead of 1974, Watergate would have been a fart in the wind.

    You seem to be of this belief that since you ASSUME everyone is equally corrupt, you seem to somehow appreciate someone who actually IS that corrupt and admits it is somehow novel or putting themselves above the fray. Which is sort of like saying shooting someone in the middle of an Arby's at lunchtime when the restaurant is full is more pure and noble than strangling someone in an alley and hiding their body in the trunk. Both are murder, yet somehow admitting to it is some sort of inoculation from the consequences.

    The reason there isn't any movement or news on impeachment is because Trump already fucking admitted to exactly what he is accused of in the truncated transcript they DID release. The argument isn't that it didn't happen, the argument from the right is that it is perfectly fine to do ANYTHING because "fuck those liberals". As long as a Democrat or Progressive somewhere is upset, then something has been accomplished.

    Your solution is to let it go to the election. That is the damn point. He was trying to MATERIALLY INFLUENCE the next election with taxpayer money by blackmailing a foreign government with OUR money to secure HIS reelection all while ostensibly subjecting Joe Biden's son, an American citizen, the a legal situation in a country that does NOT offer the protections afforded to American citizens under our constitution. Never mind the contempt of Congress or the 10 instances of blatant obstruction in the Mueller report, or the fact that is a walking conflict of interest taking bribes at every one of his properties around the globe. The whole POINT of him trying to force Ukraine to investigate Biden was to make the 2020 election not fair and tilted in his favor, again, using MY and everyone else's money as the payoff in a bribery scam.

    No, my 'point' is that without the Senate this impeachment is 'pointless'. I didn't see that a month ago but I'm seeing it now. This is going to backfire. I hope I'm wrong. I'm not a Trump fan by any means. Never have been. But I'm stuck by the fact that I don't agree with many Democratic Party ideas. Unfortunately, the political situation right now makes it unlikely that I'll vote for a Democratic Party candidate for president (maybe Bernie just to shake things up - he really is an independent which I kinda like, Klobuchar would also be tempting but she's a real long shot). If it's any consolation I'm likely going to vote for Dingell next time. I'm starting to like her...

    Edit: I didn't vote for Obama so it's kind of irrelevant how I'd feel if he had acted like Trump. I would have probably actively disliked him instead of being 'meh' about him but that's about it. I'd have felt the same way about impeaching him as I did about Bill Clinton, which was basically 'What a waste of time and energy. Let's just beat him in the next election'...
  • smeagolheartsmeagolheart Member Posts: 7,963
    edited December 2019
    Your 'point' is that without the Senate this impeachment is 'pointless'? Why?

    Let Republicans defend a traitor and criminal. Trump will go into the history books as being impeached for bribing foreign officials to help him politically. And his other crimes WILL come out. He had no immunity from state crimes once he's out of office. And Republican cowardice will go in there as well.

    If Democrats need to defend the Constitution alone so be it. They can only control what they control if Republicans want a king, and a guy who invited foreign election interference then SCREW THEM.
    ThacoBell
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,366
    edited December 2019
    @jjstraka34 & @smeagolheart

    Incidentally, one thing I've totally changed my mind on is gerrymandering. If there's a fair way of getting rid of it I'm all for it now. The tables have turned since the days when the Democrats did their doodling in the 70's and 80's and now that your side is seeing that it's total crap it's high time to do something about it.

    Edit: I'm thinking that it might force both sides (my side more right now tbh) to modify their views more to the center if they can't pull those shenanigans in the future.
    smeagolheartGrond0
  • TakisMegasTakisMegas Member Posts: 835
    Your 'point' is that without the Senate this impeachment is 'pointless'? Why?

    Let Republicans defend a traitor and criminal. Trump will go into the history books as being impeached for bribing foreign officials to help him politically. And his other crimes WILL come out. He had no immunity from state crimes once he's out of office. And Republican cowardice will go in there as well.

    If Democrats need to defend the Constitution alone so be it. They can only control what they control if Republicans want a king, and a guy who invited foreign election interference then SCREW THEM.

    I thought for a second this was the script from the new Star Wars movie.

    Balrog99
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,366
    edited December 2019
    Your 'point' is that without the Senate this impeachment is 'pointless'? Why?

    Let Republicans defend a traitor and criminal. Trump will go into the history books as being impeached for bribing foreign officials to help him politically. And his other crimes WILL come out. He had no immunity from state crimes once he's out of office. And Republican cowardice will go in there as well.

    If Democrats need to defend the Constitution alone so be it. They can only control what they control if Republicans want a king, and a guy who invited foreign election interference then SCREW THEM.

    You're assuming that everybody has the same take on this that you do. That is far from reality. I kinda agree with your premise to tell the truth but I'm a poker player (and not bad at it). The truth is irrelevant if you play your hand wrong. This is absolutely the wrong time to overplay your hand. You don't hold the Senate, the executive or the judicial and your opponent knows this. Recipe for disaster if there ever was one. Just sayin'...
    TakisMegas
  • deltagodeltago Member Posts: 7,811
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    Edit: I didn't vote for Obama so it's kind of irrelevant how I'd feel if he had acted like Trump. I would have probably actively disliked him instead of being 'meh' about him but that's about it. I'd have felt the same way about impeaching him as I did about Bill Clinton, which was basically 'What a waste of time and energy. Let's just beat him in the next election'...

    Once again, this is what the impeachment is about. Trump now has now either sought or welcomed foreign election interference 2 times (3 if you count China) and obstructed justice in both cases. If you don't bring these charges forward, Congress is giving him a free pass to allow foreign influence in the next election and it wouldn't stop just at Trump either. It'll be free reign for any politician looking to get a leg up on their competition.

    Republicans are allowing him to do it, repeating the ad nauseum conspiracy theories and demanding that Hunter Biden should be called as a witness in the Senate trial.

    What does Hunter have to do with either of the two impeachment articles being brought forth by congress? It's being made a sham by one party, yet for some untold reasons, the other party is getting all the flack.

    Bring it to a vote in the Senate, so the American public can see which Senators are worthy of upholding the constitution, and which ones are only interested in a circus. Let 2020 (or whenever the next time they are up for re-election) be judged by their respected populations, and if the circus clowns win again, well, you live with the stupidity or emigrate elsewhere.
  • TakisMegasTakisMegas Member Posts: 835
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    Your 'point' is that without the Senate this impeachment is 'pointless'? Why?

    Let Republicans defend a traitor and criminal. Trump will go into the history books as being impeached for bribing foreign officials to help him politically. And his other crimes WILL come out. He had no immunity from state crimes once he's out of office. And Republican cowardice will go in there as well.

    If Democrats need to defend the Constitution alone so be it. They can only control what they control if Republicans want a king, and a guy who invited foreign election interference then SCREW THEM.

    You're assuming that everybody has the same take on this that you do. That is far from reality. I kinda agree with your premise to tell the truth but I'm a poker player (and not bad at it). The truth is irrelevant if you play your hand wrong. This is absolutely the wrong time to overplay your hand. You don't hold the Senate, the executive or the judicial and your opponent knows this. Recipe for disaster if there ever was one. Just sayin'...

    This is something I never understood and you explained it beautifully. Unless both parties are in on it? He is the Chosen One remember.
    Balrog99
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,366
    deltago wrote: »
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    Edit: I didn't vote for Obama so it's kind of irrelevant how I'd feel if he had acted like Trump. I would have probably actively disliked him instead of being 'meh' about him but that's about it. I'd have felt the same way about impeaching him as I did about Bill Clinton, which was basically 'What a waste of time and energy. Let's just beat him in the next election'...

    Once again, this is what the impeachment is about. Trump now has now either sought or welcomed foreign election interference 2 times (3 if you count China) and obstructed justice in both cases. If you don't bring these charges forward, Congress is giving him a free pass to allow foreign influence in the next election and it wouldn't stop just at Trump either. It'll be free reign for any politician looking to get a leg up on their competition.

    Republicans are allowing him to do it, repeating the ad nauseum conspiracy theories and demanding that Hunter Biden should be called as a witness in the Senate trial.

    What does Hunter have to do with either of the two impeachment articles being brought forth by congress? It's being made a sham by one party, yet for some untold reasons, the other party is getting all the flack.

    Bring it to a vote in the Senate, so the American public can see which Senators are worthy of upholding the constitution, and which ones are only interested in a circus. Let 2020 (or whenever the next time they are up for re-election) be judged by their respected populations, and if the circus clowns win again, well, you live with the stupidity or emigrate elsewhere.

    I admire your optimism but I don't have the same faith in human nature. I really now think this impeachment was a mistake. We shall see I guess. I feel bad for encouraging my congresswoman to pursue it now...
  • TakisMegasTakisMegas Member Posts: 835
    deltago wrote: »
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    Edit: I didn't vote for Obama so it's kind of irrelevant how I'd feel if he had acted like Trump. I would have probably actively disliked him instead of being 'meh' about him but that's about it. I'd have felt the same way about impeaching him as I did about Bill Clinton, which was basically 'What a waste of time and energy. Let's just beat him in the next election'...

    Once again, this is what the impeachment is about. Trump now has now either sought or welcomed foreign election interference 2 times (3 if you count China) and obstructed justice in both cases. If you don't bring these charges forward, Congress is giving him a free pass to allow foreign influence in the next election and it wouldn't stop just at Trump either. It'll be free reign for any politician looking to get a leg up on their competition.

    Republicans are allowing him to do it, repeating the ad nauseum conspiracy theories and demanding that Hunter Biden should be called as a witness in the Senate trial.

    What does Hunter have to do with either of the two impeachment articles being brought forth by congress? It's being made a sham by one party, yet for some untold reasons, the other party is getting all the flack.

    Bring it to a vote in the Senate, so the American public can see which Senators are worthy of upholding the constitution, and which ones are only interested in a circus. Let 2020 (or whenever the next time they are up for re-election) be judged by their respected populations, and if the circus clowns win again, well, you live with the stupidity or emigrate elsewhere.

    Unfortunately nobody is gonna give a fuck. As long as the pockets are full, Blacks and Hispanics are at record low unemployment they will turn on the American Democratic Party also.

    Read somewhere that Black and Hispanic communities are starting to turn on immigration, they are saying that new immigrants are competing with them for secure jobs. Ain't that a kick in the crotch.
    Balrog99
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,366
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    TakisMegas wrote: »
    Never hate anyone, it is bad for the mind and soul. Never go Left or Right, it's even worse.

    The middle of the road is filled with nothing but the color yellow and road-kill.

    No, the middle of the road is filled with people that think the extremes are full of shit but we only have two options to choose from so we're fucked!
    TakisMegas
  • deltagodeltago Member Posts: 7,811
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    deltago wrote: »
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    Edit: I didn't vote for Obama so it's kind of irrelevant how I'd feel if he had acted like Trump. I would have probably actively disliked him instead of being 'meh' about him but that's about it. I'd have felt the same way about impeaching him as I did about Bill Clinton, which was basically 'What a waste of time and energy. Let's just beat him in the next election'...

    Once again, this is what the impeachment is about. Trump now has now either sought or welcomed foreign election interference 2 times (3 if you count China) and obstructed justice in both cases. If you don't bring these charges forward, Congress is giving him a free pass to allow foreign influence in the next election and it wouldn't stop just at Trump either. It'll be free reign for any politician looking to get a leg up on their competition.

    Republicans are allowing him to do it, repeating the ad nauseum conspiracy theories and demanding that Hunter Biden should be called as a witness in the Senate trial.

    What does Hunter have to do with either of the two impeachment articles being brought forth by congress? It's being made a sham by one party, yet for some untold reasons, the other party is getting all the flack.

    Bring it to a vote in the Senate, so the American public can see which Senators are worthy of upholding the constitution, and which ones are only interested in a circus. Let 2020 (or whenever the next time they are up for re-election) be judged by their respected populations, and if the circus clowns win again, well, you live with the stupidity or emigrate elsewhere.

    I admire your optimism but I don't have the same faith in human nature. I really now think this impeachment was a mistake. We shall see I guess. I feel bad for encouraging my congresswoman to pursue it now...

    Oh I am not optimistic. I love a good train wreck and the American political system is headed for a big one. The circus is going to win out big time. Rational thought has slowly been replaced by emotions in American politics and I don't think there is any turning back.

    I'm just going to enjoy the show from my northern perch as you all attempt to cling to a shredded document over 200 years old.
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,366
    edited December 2019
    @deltago

    The quote system seems to be malfunctioning so I'll address you directly without quoting.

    I really hope you're wrong but I fear you're right. My only hope is that the train wreck results in more than two parties in my good ol' US of A. That would be a dream come true!

    Edit: Neither party truly represents my view and I'm totally positive that I'm not alone in that realization...
  • smeagolheartsmeagolheart Member Posts: 7,963
    edited December 2019
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    Your 'point' is that without the Senate this impeachment is 'pointless'? Why?

    Let Republicans defend a traitor and criminal. Trump will go into the history books as being impeached for bribing foreign officials to help him politically. And his other crimes WILL come out. He had no immunity from state crimes once he's out of office. And Republican cowardice will go in there as well.

    If Democrats need to defend the Constitution alone so be it. They can only control what they control if Republicans want a king, and a guy who invited foreign election interference then SCREW THEM.

    You're assuming that everybody has the same take on this that you do. That is far from reality. I kinda agree with your premise to tell the truth but I'm a poker player (and not bad at it). The truth is irrelevant if you play your hand wrong. This is absolutely the wrong time to overplay your hand. You don't hold the Senate, the executive or the judicial and your opponent knows this. Recipe for disaster if there ever was one. Just sayin'...

    Regardless of conservatives ignoring the truth it is reality.

    And Republicans are standing with a guy who cheats charities and has more than invited foreign interference in American elections in both 2016 and 2020 and lies about nearly everything. These are facts.

    Conservatives are cowards, that's somewhat subjective I guess but the alternative is they hate America.
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,366
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    Your 'point' is that without the Senate this impeachment is 'pointless'? Why?

    Let Republicans defend a traitor and criminal. Trump will go into the history books as being impeached for bribing foreign officials to help him politically. And his other crimes WILL come out. He had no immunity from state crimes once he's out of office. And Republican cowardice will go in there as well.

    If Democrats need to defend the Constitution alone so be it. They can only control what they control if Republicans want a king, and a guy who invited foreign election interference then SCREW THEM.

    You're assuming that everybody has the same take on this that you do. That is far from reality. I kinda agree with your premise to tell the truth but I'm a poker player (and not bad at it). The truth is irrelevant if you play your hand wrong. This is absolutely the wrong time to overplay your hand. You don't hold the Senate, the executive or the judicial and your opponent knows this. Recipe for disaster if there ever was one. Just sayin'...

    Regardless of conservatives ignoring the truth it is reality.

    And Republicans are standing with a guy who cheats charities and has more than invited foreign interference in American elections in both 2016 and 2020 and lies about nearly everything. These are facts.

    Conservatives are cowards.

    Bullshit, conservatives don't agree with you and Trump is just a bulwark against your policies. It's as simple as that. That Trump was able to win the primaries was the real travesty. That's what needs to be addressed. Two parties can't possibly represent over 300 million people!
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,366
    edited December 2019
    Labor should have their own party, so should rich people. Conservative Christians should have their own party, so should seculars. Fiscal Conservatives who don't give a shit about social issues (me for example) should have their own party as well as Liberals who want bigger government controls. Hell, even white supremacists and communists should have their own parties (it would allow them to at least 'feel' represented even if they're largely ignored). Maybe if we had to play together we'd get along better. Call me an idealist but I think more choices makes for better government.

    Edit: Yikes, after researching white supremacists in Europe and communists espousing the Soviet template in Europe, I've changed my mind. Those folks don't deserve their own parties. Screw them!
    Post edited by Balrog99 on
  • QuickbladeQuickblade Member Posts: 957
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    Your 'point' is that without the Senate this impeachment is 'pointless'? Why?

    Let Republicans defend a traitor and criminal. Trump will go into the history books as being impeached for bribing foreign officials to help him politically. And his other crimes WILL come out. He had no immunity from state crimes once he's out of office. And Republican cowardice will go in there as well.

    If Democrats need to defend the Constitution alone so be it. They can only control what they control if Republicans want a king, and a guy who invited foreign election interference then SCREW THEM.

    You're assuming that everybody has the same take on this that you do. That is far from reality. I kinda agree with your premise to tell the truth but I'm a poker player (and not bad at it). The truth is irrelevant if you play your hand wrong. This is absolutely the wrong time to overplay your hand. You don't hold the Senate, the executive or the judicial and your opponent knows this. Recipe for disaster if there ever was one. Just sayin'...

    Regardless of conservatives ignoring the truth it is reality.

    And Republicans are standing with a guy who cheats charities and has more than invited foreign interference in American elections in both 2016 and 2020 and lies about nearly everything. These are facts.

    Conservatives are cowards.

    Bullshit, conservatives don't agree with you and Trump is just a bulwark against your policies. It's as simple as that. That Trump was able to win the primaries was the real travesty. That's what needs to be addressed. Two parties can't possibly represent over 300 million people!

    Probably. But it's a law of political science that as long as you have first-past-the-post winner-take-all (whole state electoral college wins), it will ALWAYS boil down to two parties. No more, no less.
    semiticgoddess
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,366
    edited December 2019
    Quickblade wrote: »
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    Your 'point' is that without the Senate this impeachment is 'pointless'? Why?

    Let Republicans defend a traitor and criminal. Trump will go into the history books as being impeached for bribing foreign officials to help him politically. And his other crimes WILL come out. He had no immunity from state crimes once he's out of office. And Republican cowardice will go in there as well.

    If Democrats need to defend the Constitution alone so be it. They can only control what they control if Republicans want a king, and a guy who invited foreign election interference then SCREW THEM.

    You're assuming that everybody has the same take on this that you do. That is far from reality. I kinda agree with your premise to tell the truth but I'm a poker player (and not bad at it). The truth is irrelevant if you play your hand wrong. This is absolutely the wrong time to overplay your hand. You don't hold the Senate, the executive or the judicial and your opponent knows this. Recipe for disaster if there ever was one. Just sayin'...

    Regardless of conservatives ignoring the truth it is reality.

    And Republicans are standing with a guy who cheats charities and has more than invited foreign interference in American elections in both 2016 and 2020 and lies about nearly everything. These are facts.

    Conservatives are cowards.

    Bullshit, conservatives don't agree with you and Trump is just a bulwark against your policies. It's as simple as that. That Trump was able to win the primaries was the real travesty. That's what needs to be addressed. Two parties can't possibly represent over 300 million people!

    Probably. But it's a law of political science that as long as you have first-past-the-post winner-take-all (whole state electoral college wins), it will ALWAYS boil down to two parties. No more, no less.

    Yes, which is why we need to switch to a Parliamentary system. I know it's a travesty to admit the Brits may have gotten it right when we ultimately decided to break from them, still, their system is better. Even with their current troubles...

    Edit: Ironically, this might be an easier sell to the conservatives since their revered founding fathers were originally paranoid of political parties. Now if we could just find a way to sell it to the Liberals we could have a slam-dunk. Maybe portray it as a way to get rid of the Electoral College???
    semiticgoddess
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    edited December 2019
    Unless this turns out to be some kind of super-ironic piece of performance art I think I'd just like someone to kill me:

    Balrog99
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,366
    edited December 2019
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    Unless this turns out to be some kind of super-ironic piece of performance art I think I'd just like someone to kill me:


    Nobody fainted ("slain in the Spirit") so I think you're safe... ;)
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    edited December 2019
    What I'd like to know is how a billionaire former New York mayor who buys his way into the race at the last minute has any constituency whatsoever. The fact that there are enough people to fill a room in any city in the country for this guy is mind-boggling to me. Are they just helpless because of the magnetic personality of......Mike Bloomberg?? I've seen potato sacks with more charisma. Is it because he has a cable channel no one watches?? Seriously, what the hell is this guy's appeal??

    What bothers me most about what's going on in Britain and here is how people just aren't taking this shit seriously. Political decisions are life and death for some people. Instead, it's non-stop tabloid nonsense that never, ever focuses on policy in lieu of horserace bullshit, and the most I know about two of the people in the running for the Democratic nomination (Buttigieg and Bloomberg) are that their supporters like to do choreographed dances.
    ThacoBell
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,366
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    What I'd like to know is how a billionaire former New York mayor who buys his way into the race at the last minute has any constituency whatsoever. The fact that there are enough people to fill a room in any city in the country for this guy is mind-boggling to me. Are they just helpless because of the magnetic personality of......Mike Bloomberg?? I've seen potato sacks with more charisma. Is it because he has a cable channel no one watches?? Seriously, what the hell is this guy's appeal??

    Apparently he says he's the only guy who can beat Trump. We'll probably never know because he has a snowball's chance in Hell of winning the nomination. Of course, I thought the same of Trump in '16 and Obama in '08 so what do I know...?
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    What I'd like to know is how a billionaire former New York mayor who buys his way into the race at the last minute has any constituency whatsoever. The fact that there are enough people to fill a room in any city in the country for this guy is mind-boggling to me. Are they just helpless because of the magnetic personality of......Mike Bloomberg?? I've seen potato sacks with more charisma. Is it because he has a cable channel no one watches?? Seriously, what the hell is this guy's appeal??

    Apparently he says he's the only guy who can beat Trump. We'll probably never know because he has a snowball's chance in Hell of winning the nomination. Of course, I thought the same of Trump in '16 and Obama in '08 so what do I know...?

    He's not trying to win the nomination. He doesn't even WANT to be on the debate stage, which is why he is funding it all himself (because to get in the debates you have to meet a donor threshold). He is setting up a possible 3rd Party run. Which would pretty much guarantee Trump wins. And since they are both part of a club none of us will ever be in, maybe that's exactly what he wants.
    Balrog99TakisMegas
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,366
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    What I'd like to know is how a billionaire former New York mayor who buys his way into the race at the last minute has any constituency whatsoever. The fact that there are enough people to fill a room in any city in the country for this guy is mind-boggling to me. Are they just helpless because of the magnetic personality of......Mike Bloomberg?? I've seen potato sacks with more charisma. Is it because he has a cable channel no one watches?? Seriously, what the hell is this guy's appeal??

    Apparently he says he's the only guy who can beat Trump. We'll probably never know because he has a snowball's chance in Hell of winning the nomination. Of course, I thought the same of Trump in '16 and Obama in '08 so what do I know...?

    He's not trying to win the nomination. He doesn't even WANT to be on the debate stage, which is why he is funding it all himself (because to get in the debates you have to meet a donor threshold). He is setting up a possible 3rd Party run. Which would pretty much guarantee Trump wins. And since they are both part of a club none of us will ever be in, maybe that's exactly what he wants.

    Another billionaire afraid of a Bernie or Warren victory? It's possible, but I'm not sure since there are so many ways for rich folks to mitigate their losses. Why wouldn't Bill Gates run if that were the case? He'd probably have a better chance then Bloomberg on name recognition alone, not to mention his charitable contributions...
    smeagolheart
  • Grond0Grond0 Member Posts: 7,305
    After seeing the exit poll (which proved very accurate) I went to bed rather than try and stay awake while the results rolled in. The predicted majority for the Conservatives is currently 78 with just a few seats still to declare. Here are a few reflections on the results, picking up on a couple of the themes being discussed in this thread overnight.

    1) Disinformation
    The quality of information presented in the campaign was generally pretty high - far better than in the Brexit referendum for instance. Fact checkers were prominent and calling out the more extreme claims. That doesn't of course mean I agree with everything that was said. I suspect that the UK economy will be worse both in the short and long term, but that's not something that can be known for certain at this stage - so it's not unreasonable for Brexit supporters to say that the greater freedom to do trade deals worldwide will outweigh losses in the EU.

    If anything I think the claims being made by Labour were the dodgiest. The assertion that the NHS was up for sale was particularly weak - essentially based on the position being advanced by US negotiators that there should be more access for US companies to the drugs market (no actual negotiation could take place while the UK was in the EU, so there has been no response to this as yet). While the Conservatives clearly think there should be more private involvement in the NHS, Johnson successfully fought off the Labour claim by reiterating their support for the founding principle of the NHS - that treatment should be free at the point of delivery.

    2) Brexit
    While individual seats had important local issues and a lot of discussion in the campaign was about other issues, the results do seem to reflect very closely the country's position on Brexit. The Conservatives got a slight increase in voting share, up to 43.6% of the vote, by successfully squeezing the Brexit party down to 2.0%. The main parties that generally opposed Brexit were Labour with 32.3%, Lib Dems with 11.5% and the SNP with 3.9%, i.e. it was the successful concentration of the Leave vote that's been decisive.

    3) Labour
    Their vote share was down 7.9% from the previous election, which is pretty damning. Since Corbyn was elected the party has moved fundamentally to the left. That process was already well under way at the last election, but disguised as many MPs were still centrist - even if their local party organisations were not. At this election most such MPs had already gone and the Labour manifesto was far more socialist than any since the early 1980s. The Labour campaign also concentrated on their traditional concerns rather than Brexit. The result has been that they've lost most of the centrist support gained under Blair and demonstrated once more that there is not a majority in this country for a socialist agenda.

    Labour are now left in a difficult position. Corbyn has been very popular with local party members and supporters, but the result has been to move the party to a position where it is unlikely to be able to get a majority in future. One possibility to address that might be to try and revive the Lib Lab pact last seen in the 1970s, but in itself that would require an acceptance of the need for a more moderate agenda. I'm not sure that this election will provide enough of a kick to do that.

    4) Conservatives
    Theresa May tried a very similar gamble in 2017, but lost. Boris though has won big on the back of a promise to deliver Brexit. I think it would be a mistake though to see the extreme position he's taken on Brexit as symptomatic of his general political position - I think he will want to adopt the same type of policies he did as London mayor (relatively high spending, concentration on infrastructure, strong public services).

    While a lot of the old guard of moderate MPs have gone, the Conservatives now have significant representation in traditional Labour seats in the north and Wales - and those will be supporting a one nation approach, with an end to austerity. The next couple of years will almost certainly see a surge in public investment on the back of that and in line with Johnson's desires. The potential problem after that will be if the economy does in fact take a hit from Brexit. In London Johnson was able to take advantage of the relatively high resources available to the capital. I doubt very much if he will be able to replicate that across the UK and borrowing in an attempt to do so could start to look unsustainable within a few years - but that's a problem for another day.

    5) Union of the UK
    The SNP gained another 13 seats, up to 48 of the 59 seats in Scotland. That though was less because of their vote share (up 0.9%) than a reduction in Labour votes. The SNP will no doubt argue on the back of the election that there should be another independence referendum, but the size of the Conservative majority means that is very unlikely to be granted in the near future. Even if it were it's not at all clear that there would be a majority for independence - the polls have not suggested that even at the moment and the argument actually becomes harder to make once the UK has left the EU and Scotland would be more fully exposed to an economic shock if they left the UK in turn. I suspect therefore that, after a post-election splash, independence will be on a bit of a back burner for a few years. It will gain prominence again though in the run up to the next election, by which stage there will be some sort of impact of leaving the EU to argue about.

    One of the oddities of Northern Irish politics has been that the only party with MPs sitting in Parliament were the DUP, who supported Brexit, although the country voted heavily to Remain. That's changed slightly now with the DUP losing a couple of seats to the SDLP who advocated Remain. Johnson's Brexit deal will almost certainly make running businesses in NI more difficult, so the Brexit arrangements are likely to cause ongoing controversy there. It does seem possible to me that will translate into a clear majority wishing for Irish unification (polls suggest there may already be a marginal majority). Both the UK and Irish governments have a duty under the Good Friday Agreement to hold a referendum if it does become clear there are majorities in favor of reunification. I would be surprised if the political processes move particularly fast though, so the chances of Northern Ireland leaving the UK over the next 5 years still seem slim, but I think that's more likely than Scotland doing so.
    TakisMegasMantis37Balrog99
  • Mantis37Mantis37 Member Posts: 1,173
    Ironically enough Remain supporting parties got 52%, Leave 48%. But that's all over for now.
    Balrog99
  • smeagolheartsmeagolheart Member Posts: 7,963
    edited December 2019
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    Your 'point' is that without the Senate this impeachment is 'pointless'? Why?

    Let Republicans defend a traitor and criminal. Trump will go into the history books as being impeached for bribing foreign officials to help him politically. And his other crimes WILL come out. He had no immunity from state crimes once he's out of office. And Republican cowardice will go in there as well.

    If Democrats need to defend the Constitution alone so be it. They can only control what they control if Republicans want a king, and a guy who invited foreign election interference then SCREW THEM.

    You're assuming that everybody has the same take on this that you do. That is far from reality. I kinda agree with your premise to tell the truth but I'm a poker player (and not bad at it). The truth is irrelevant if you play your hand wrong. This is absolutely the wrong time to overplay your hand. You don't hold the Senate, the executive or the judicial and your opponent knows this. Recipe for disaster if there ever was one. Just sayin'...

    Regardless of conservatives ignoring the truth it is reality.

    And Republicans are standing with a guy who cheats charities and has more than invited foreign interference in American elections in both 2016 and 2020 and lies about nearly everything. These are facts.

    Conservatives are cowards.

    Bullshit, conservatives don't agree with you and Trump is just a bulwark against your policies. It's as simple as that. That Trump was able to win the primaries was the real travesty. That's what needs to be addressed. Two parties can't possibly represent over 300 million people!

    They don't agree with facts, yeah got it. We know they are a cult that don't care what happens to anyone else at best and at worst actively want others to suffer as long as they think they're getting their way.

    And here we are back full circle at the Nazi argument because conservatives back then didn't speak up or care what happened because they bought into rhetoric that Hitler was making Germany great again and was on their side while the FACTS were otherwise.

    The population of Germany in 1933 was around 60 million. Almost all Germans were Christian, belonging either to the Roman Catholic (ca. 20 million members) or the Protestant (ca. 40 million members) churches. The Jewish community in Germany in 1933 was less than 1% of the total population of the country.

    They were the scapegoat. It was ok of bad things happened to them. It was ok if my side lies, cheats, and steals power because it's my side. People didn't agree with the reality of what was going on back then either.
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,366
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    Your 'point' is that without the Senate this impeachment is 'pointless'? Why?

    Let Republicans defend a traitor and criminal. Trump will go into the history books as being impeached for bribing foreign officials to help him politically. And his other crimes WILL come out. He had no immunity from state crimes once he's out of office. And Republican cowardice will go in there as well.

    If Democrats need to defend the Constitution alone so be it. They can only control what they control if Republicans want a king, and a guy who invited foreign election interference then SCREW THEM.

    You're assuming that everybody has the same take on this that you do. That is far from reality. I kinda agree with your premise to tell the truth but I'm a poker player (and not bad at it). The truth is irrelevant if you play your hand wrong. This is absolutely the wrong time to overplay your hand. You don't hold the Senate, the executive or the judicial and your opponent knows this. Recipe for disaster if there ever was one. Just sayin'...

    Regardless of conservatives ignoring the truth it is reality.

    And Republicans are standing with a guy who cheats charities and has more than invited foreign interference in American elections in both 2016 and 2020 and lies about nearly everything. These are facts.

    Conservatives are cowards.

    Bullshit, conservatives don't agree with you and Trump is just a bulwark against your policies. It's as simple as that. That Trump was able to win the primaries was the real travesty. That's what needs to be addressed. Two parties can't possibly represent over 300 million people!

    They don't agree with facts, yeah got it. We know they are a cult that don't care what happens to anyone else at best and at worst actively want others to suffer as long as they think they're getting their way.

    And here we are back full circle at the Nazi argument because conservatives back then didn't speak up or care what happened because they bought into rhetoric that Hitler was making Germany great again and was on their side while the FACTS were otherwise.

    The population of Germany in 1933 was around 60 million. Almost all Germans were Christian, belonging either to the Roman Catholic (ca. 20 million members) or the Protestant (ca. 40 million members) churches. The Jewish community in Germany in 1933 was less than 1% of the total population of the country.

    They were the scapegoat. It was ok of bad things happened to them. It was ok if my side lies, cheats, and steals power because it's my side. People didn't agree with the reality of what was going on back then either.

    Broken record dude. I'd really hate believing that almost half the population is either a bunch of Nazis, or are so hateful that they at least condone that behaviour. Black & white thinking is scary as Hell to me...
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 12,235
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    Trump wants to run for a third term and people are farting around as Democracy is dying.
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    That's only true if the deceived were unaware of the deception or even care that they were deceived. I would argue that the 'deception' just gave them an excuse to vote the way they really wanted too anyway.

    This makes literally no sense to me at all. How can anyone defend disinformation in politics? It has, quite literally, boggled my mind.

    Even in the circumstance that 100% of all people voted the way they would have had the information been 100% truthful (which, incidentally, we have anecdotal evidence that this is NOT true) - it still makes no sense as a defense of lying/misinformation. They were already apparently all going to vote that way, so why lie?

    Because these people have no problem stomping on others to get their way. They don't care about Democracy, truth, or the right thing. Only what they want which is whatever lie their strongman tells them they should be fighting for.

    This is how Jews ended up in gas chambers. Conservative Christians went along with it because this attitude: "I don't care, I'm getting what I want".

    What? That is total bullshit. Conservative Christians got what, exactly? They bought into protection from Communism (which was just as aggressive and violent as the Nazis in 1920's and 30's Germany) and that's it. They didn't want to kill Jews then anymore than they do now...

    Hitler told them they were being invaded by Jews and gypsies and promised to make Germany great again. Conservatives loved that strength and as long as they got what they wanted turned a blind eye as they lost their democracy. They thought Hitler was lying but everybody lies so it's okay.

    Yep, that about sums it up. Sure does fit right in there with your worldview.

    How convenient that there's no mention of the socialists/communists and their violence as contributing factors nor the abject failure of the Weimar Republic, nor the idiotic shortsightedness of the vengeful victors of WW1 and the Versailles Treaty. It's all about Conservative Christains and their desire to make a profit and kill people. How did I not see that before???

    Well maybe you've got blinders on, that's why you can't see it. I didn't say they wanted to kill people, sure some did but most just turned a blind eye to it because it wasn't affecting them personally.

    Hey look Trump thinks he's going to run for a third term in 2024 and has name for Republican Governor Mike Huckabee, father of former White House propagandist Sarah Huckabee Sanders, to his 2024 team.




    This is all good too right. Who cares, it's my team right.

    I'm just saying there were far more factors than you seem to think. The comparison of Trump to Hitler is ludicrous and diminishes your arguments to all but those who already agree with you. I know you don't see it so I'm wasting my breath...

    Literally nothing I could say would change your mind and that's my point. Trumpism is a cult exactly like Nazis were in a cult.

    And all my points were 100% accurate. The settlement for WW1 was unfair and used by Hitler as an issue to overcome to make Germany great again before the crippling treaty of Versailles and its' aftermath.

    The situation in Germany of the 1930's is absolutely nothing like 2019 America. Name one thing that's similar other than your hatred of Trump and the Republican party. We have it far too good in this country to reach the depths of despair and desperation that led to Hitler.

    As an aside, I'm still not convinced that Trump will win in 2020 but it's really disheartening that it now seems like he has a chance. I put that directly on the Democratic Party overestimating the significance of winning one partial branch of the government. A month ago I was all for impeaching Trump but I really think this whole process was completely bungled and now I wish it had never happened.

    Well, there's the concentration camps for one. The demonization of the free press, minorities, rising nationalism and hate crimes. THere's quite a few parallels actually.
    semiticgoddesssmeagolheart
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    edited December 2019
    ThacoBell wrote: »
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    Trump wants to run for a third term and people are farting around as Democracy is dying.
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    That's only true if the deceived were unaware of the deception or even care that they were deceived. I would argue that the 'deception' just gave them an excuse to vote the way they really wanted too anyway.

    This makes literally no sense to me at all. How can anyone defend disinformation in politics? It has, quite literally, boggled my mind.

    Even in the circumstance that 100% of all people voted the way they would have had the information been 100% truthful (which, incidentally, we have anecdotal evidence that this is NOT true) - it still makes no sense as a defense of lying/misinformation. They were already apparently all going to vote that way, so why lie?

    Because these people have no problem stomping on others to get their way. They don't care about Democracy, truth, or the right thing. Only what they want which is whatever lie their strongman tells them they should be fighting for.

    This is how Jews ended up in gas chambers. Conservative Christians went along with it because this attitude: "I don't care, I'm getting what I want".

    What? That is total bullshit. Conservative Christians got what, exactly? They bought into protection from Communism (which was just as aggressive and violent as the Nazis in 1920's and 30's Germany) and that's it. They didn't want to kill Jews then anymore than they do now...

    Hitler told them they were being invaded by Jews and gypsies and promised to make Germany great again. Conservatives loved that strength and as long as they got what they wanted turned a blind eye as they lost their democracy. They thought Hitler was lying but everybody lies so it's okay.

    Yep, that about sums it up. Sure does fit right in there with your worldview.

    How convenient that there's no mention of the socialists/communists and their violence as contributing factors nor the abject failure of the Weimar Republic, nor the idiotic shortsightedness of the vengeful victors of WW1 and the Versailles Treaty. It's all about Conservative Christains and their desire to make a profit and kill people. How did I not see that before???

    Well maybe you've got blinders on, that's why you can't see it. I didn't say they wanted to kill people, sure some did but most just turned a blind eye to it because it wasn't affecting them personally.

    Hey look Trump thinks he's going to run for a third term in 2024 and has name for Republican Governor Mike Huckabee, father of former White House propagandist Sarah Huckabee Sanders, to his 2024 team.




    This is all good too right. Who cares, it's my team right.

    I'm just saying there were far more factors than you seem to think. The comparison of Trump to Hitler is ludicrous and diminishes your arguments to all but those who already agree with you. I know you don't see it so I'm wasting my breath...

    Literally nothing I could say would change your mind and that's my point. Trumpism is a cult exactly like Nazis were in a cult.

    And all my points were 100% accurate. The settlement for WW1 was unfair and used by Hitler as an issue to overcome to make Germany great again before the crippling treaty of Versailles and its' aftermath.

    The situation in Germany of the 1930's is absolutely nothing like 2019 America. Name one thing that's similar other than your hatred of Trump and the Republican party. We have it far too good in this country to reach the depths of despair and desperation that led to Hitler.

    As an aside, I'm still not convinced that Trump will win in 2020 but it's really disheartening that it now seems like he has a chance. I put that directly on the Democratic Party overestimating the significance of winning one partial branch of the government. A month ago I was all for impeaching Trump but I really think this whole process was completely bungled and now I wish it had never happened.

    Well, there's the concentration camps for one. The demonization of the free press, minorities, rising nationalism and hate crimes. THere's quite a few parallels actually.

    I mean, this kid is dead strictly because of the actions of border patrol agents. And of course, they lied about what happened. Instead of bringing a kid to a hospital, they quarantined him in a concrete cell and let him die. Who the hell are the monsters working in these places?? In what universe is this kid not immediately given emergency medical attention?? The only answer is the dehumanization of migrants that has been coming from the top since the day he came down the escalator. To these workers, this kids was nothing but a cockroach:

    https://www.propublica.org/article/inside-the-cell-where-a-sick-16-year-old-boy-died-in-border-patrol-care

    I understand most people don't give a flying fuck about any of this. After all, it's not THEIR kid. There but by the grace of God go I. I don't know how many deaths we are up to now, but will remind again that NO deaths occurred in these circumstances under Bush OR Obama. Now they are a regular event. Quite the coincidence. And as @ThacoBell and I have mentioned on numerous occasions, they are dying the same way Anne Frank did. By not getting treatment for illnesses while detained. But shit, we don't even believe our own citizens should have access to health care, so it isn't really surprising these people would think a helpless child from another country wouldn't. It's a perk, a luxury. Like a Lexus or Porsche.
    ThacoBell
  • semiticgoddesssemiticgoddess Member Posts: 14,903
    The Jewish community in Germany in 1933 was less than 1% of the total population of the country.
    That's a grim reminder... I have no idea how many times I've heard people criticize the trans rights movement and question the value of trans right by saying that trans people were "only 1% of the population," and asking why anyone else had to accept our presence if we were so heavily outnumbered.
    smeagolheartThacoBell
Sign In or Register to comment.