The Neverending Thread for Political Shit

[beantownbubba]

i think biden may be transgender hilary. running him would be a colossal mistake. the donald has already moved from salivating to outright drooling.

Yes.

Actually, let me say that another way: HELL YES.

Or to be really precise: This would be so fucking stupid it's something only the ever self-destructive Democrats could come up with.

[schlanky]

This would be so fucking stupid it's something only the ever self-destructive Democrats could come up with.

Yep. And we shouldn't underestimate how fucking stupid the self-destructive DNC can be.

[John A Arkansawyer]

i think biden may be transgender hilary. running him would be a colossal mistake. the donald has already moved from salivating to outright drooling.

Yes.

Actually, let me say that another way: HELL YES.

Or to be really precise: This would be so fucking stupid it's something only the ever self-destructive Democrats could come up with.

Running Hillary was stupider. She had no proven experience in running a hard race, and one pretty sorry loss on her record. Biden has actually won a couple of difficult ones. That said, I don't think he'll be the nominee, and I'm glad. There's a space between "running Hillary stupid" and "losing to Donald Trump" stupid, and I believe that's where Biden is spending this summer.

[oilpiers]

Biden is an old buffoon. Who are these people that are giving him a lead in the polls? I have never met one. Is it only people with landlines who want to talk to strangers?

[Zip City]

Biden is an old buffoon. Who are these people that are giving him a lead in the pools? I have never met one. Is it only people with landlines who want to talk to strangers?

Don’t underestimate the number of people who like the status quo.

[scotto]

i think biden may be transgender hilary. running him would be a colossal mistake. the donald has already moved from salivating to outright drooling.

Yes.

Actually, let me say that another way: HELL YES.

Or to be really precise: This would be so fucking stupid it's something only the ever self-destructive Democrats could come up with.

Running Hillary was stupider. She had no proven experience in running a hard race, and one pretty sorry loss on her record...

Not bad for the person who won the popular vote with 3 million more votes than the current incumbent.

[beantownbubba]

We know that the elections is going to be all about Trump and one of his failings that I assume the Democratic candidate will emphasize is Trump's constant lying. Biden doesn't have an achilles heel on that score, he has an achilles leg because of the plagiarism. Turing a strength into a vulnerability does not seem like a path to victory to me. Obviously this isn't the most substantive issue out there but it seems to me to be at least moderately important.

[John A Arkansawyer]

Running Hillary was stupider. She had no proven experience in running a hard race, and one pretty sorry loss on her record...

Not bad for the person who won the popular vote with 3 million more votes than the current incumbent.

Depending on how you count it, she also won the popular vote against Obama in 2008, which I suppose means we're in President Hillary Clinton's third term right about now.

[Iowan]

Running Hillary was stupider. She had no proven experience in running a hard race, and one pretty sorry loss on her record...

Not bad for the person who won the popular vote with 3 million more votes than the current incumbent.

She could win by 10 million and it won't mean anything in our current system, which are the rules we're currently playing with.

[Zip City]

Running Hillary was stupider. She had no proven experience in running a hard race, and one pretty sorry loss on her record...

Not bad for the person who won the popular vote with 3 million more votes than the current incumbent.

She could win by 10 million and it won't mean anything in our current system, which are the rules we're currently playing with.

The current argument FOR the EC is, what? That politicians would only curry favor in the big cities where the population is densest? That they would ignore the rural areas? Perhaps, but since when do rural votes count for more than urban votes?

***Not directed at Iowan, just piggy-backing on his post***

[scotto]

Running Hillary was stupider. She had no proven experience in running a hard race, and one pretty sorry loss on her record...

Not bad for the person who won the popular vote with 3 million more votes than the current incumbent.

She could win by 10 million and it won't mean anything in our current system, which are the rules we're currently playing with.

I'm not talking about the Electoral College rules, I'm just saying that she won the popular vote handily. Tagging Hillary as a flawed candidate--which may be true in some ways--overlooks that she was the choice of 65,853,514 voters, the majority of Americans. If running Hillary was stupid, then name another Democrat in 2016 who could've topped 65 million votes. A two-million or so vote swing in three states and we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

[tinnitus photography]

when does Trump just cut w/ the bullshit and start selling MAKE AMERICA WHITE AGAIN hats?

[Tequila Cowboy]

A 2,000,000 swing wouldn’t have been necessary. She actually lost because of roughly 79,000 votes. 23,000 in WI, 45,000 in PA and 11,000 in MI.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Un ... l_election

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vanity ... -votes/amp

[Iowan]

Not bad for the person who won the popular vote with 3 million more votes than the current incumbent.

She could win by 10 million and it won't mean anything in our current system, which are the rules we're currently playing with.

The current argument FOR the EC is, what? That politicians would only curry favor in the big cities where the population is densest? That they would ignore the rural areas? Perhaps, but since when do rural votes count for more than urban votes?

***Not directed at Iowan, just piggy-backing on his post***

The only current argument for the EC comes from the people who benefit from it because they get a disproportionate voice. The Senate already exists to ensure a more equalized voice for low population states.

There's no real national benefit. The other point people often gloss over is that the current iteration of the EC is not the original one. Originally, it was a group of Congressmen who chose the Executive. You voted on your rep, who in turn voted on the President. Point being is that we haven't had some pre-ordained, set in stone method of Presidential selection. It has evolved in the past, and will in the future if the majority of Americans are continually subjected to the person who didn't win the popular vote.

[beantownbubba]

A 2,000,000 swing wouldn’t have been necessary. She actually lost because of roughly 79,000 votes. 23,000 in WI, 45,000 in PA and 11,000 in MI.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Un ... l_election

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vanity ... -votes/amp

Or, looked at another way, she actually lost because of roughly 79,001 potential voters who didn't show up.

[Tequila Cowboy]

A 2,000,000 swing wouldn’t have been necessary. She actually lost because of roughly 79,000 votes. 23,000 in WI, 45,000 in PA and 11,000 in MI.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Un ... l_election

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vanity ... -votes/amp

Or, looked at another way, she actually lost because of roughly 79,001 potential voters who didn't show up.

Yep. Just looking at Wisconsin in 2012 vs 2016

2012

Obama- 1,613,950
Romney- 1,408, 746
Other- 28,104

Total votes cast- 3,050,800

2016

Clinton- 1,382,536
Trump- 1,405,284
Other- 137,746

Total votes cast- 2,925,566

125,235 fewer voters voted for President in Wisconsin in 2016 than in 2012. Clinton lost by 22,748. Think maybe she should have campaigned in Wisconsin?

[whatwouldcooleydo?]

when does Trump just cut w/ the bullshit and start selling MAKE AMERICA WHITE AGAIN hats?

Hoods

[Tequila Cowboy]

Later today the House is going to vote on a measure condemning the President for his racist Tweets and continued statements doubling down on those Tweets. One would assume that it won't get a single GOP vote. Nobody should ever let them forget it.

[Flea]

Later today the House is going to vote on a measure condemning the President for his racist Tweets and continued statements doubling down on those Tweets. One would assume that it won't get a single GOP vote. Nobody should ever let them forget it.

And after the vote is cast, the Dems will give each other congratulatory handjobs, the Repubs will cry foul, the Marmalade Shit Gibbon will continue throwing his own feces at the American populace, and we will be back to our new normal within 24 hours. I'm close to the realization that DC perhaps SHOULD be nuked with all it's governmental occupants and their enablers sheltered in place, then let some adults take over the system.

[pearlbeer]

After (this latest) week in politics I've concluded the following.

On the subject on the State of the Union and current administration:

I'm angry. I'm very angry. But, I could, in theory, be angrier.
I'm really depressed. I suppose I could imagine being even more depressed about the situation.
I am very embarrassed. I can't imagine being more embarrassed. I don't think it is possible. I have reached maximum embarrassment.

Therefore, I have concluded that the world needs a new, updated greeting for the modern era. In today's environment, a mere 'Hi' or 'Hello' is no longer sufficient. I suggest we deploy a new greeting, which, much like 'Aloha' can mean both hello and goodbye. My suggestion is "Fuck Trump".

As in:

"Bubba! Fuck Trump! Hope you have been well, man."
"Good point, Clams. Hope the family is well. Fuck Trump!"
"Happy Birthday, Mom! Fuck Trump!"


Join me, won't you?

[LBRod]

Later today the House is going to vote on a measure condemning the President for his racist Tweets and continued statements doubling down on those Tweets. One would assume that it won't get a single GOP vote. Nobody should ever let them forget it.

And after the vote is cast, the Dems will give each other congratulatory handjobs, the Repubs will cry foul, the Marmalade Shit Gibbon will continue throwing his own feces at the American populace, and we will be back to our new normal within 24 hours. I'm close to the realization that DC perhaps SHOULD be nuked with all it's governmental occupants and their enablers sheltered in place, then let some adults take over the system.

I'll just leave this here.

https://reason.com/2019/07/16/the-last- ... ld-be-too/

[beantownbubba]

And after the vote is cast, the Dems will give each other congratulatory handjobs, the Repubs will cry foul, the Marmalade Shit Gibbon will continue throwing his own feces at the American populace, and we will be back to our new normal within 24 hours. I'm close to the realization that DC perhaps SHOULD be nuked with all it's governmental occupants and their enablers sheltered in place, then let some adults take over the system.

There is clearly value in simply getting Trump off center stage, but it is getting harder and harder to imagine scenarios in which the overall political situation improves.

[beantownbubba]

Hey, Pearlbeer. Fuck Trump.

[beantownbubba]

I'll just leave this here.

https://reason.com/2019/07/16/the-last- ... ld-be-too/

I didn't realize Reason is still around. A couple of quotes of note:

"the systematic organization of hatreds, which is as good a working definition of politics as there is."

" I've become less dogmatic about exactly how little or how much the state should do, preferring instead to talk about libertarian as an adjective or a pre-political sensibility, "an outlook that privileges things such as autonomy, open-mindedness, pluralism, tolerance, innovation, and voluntary cooperation over forced participation in as many parts of life as possible."

Interesting to me that he lists safety standards and welfare for the indigent as among government's core functions. To the extent he is representative of "mainstream liberarianism" that's a worthwhile an significant evolution in libertarian thought.

[beantownbubba]

Relevant to some recent posts, from Rahm Emanuel's op-ed in today's WaPo:

"What remains to be seen is whether today’s far left is more interested in defeating Trump than it is in drumming moderates out of the Democratic Party...
Democrats shouldn’t lean into what Trump does poorly. We should offer a contrast — someone competent, balanced, thoughtful and capable of reaching across the aisle."

Questions: Is he right, is there such a person and will the post 2020 Congress be a help or hindrance?

[scotto]

The bigger questions that worry me are, how rabid will the Trumpers (including elected Trumpers) be if he loses (or is forced out of office) or how much more emboldened and reckless will they be if he wins a second term?
Either way I envision ugly political warfare that will make the Obama years look genteel by comparison.
I think we're fucked.

[Zip City]

Relevant to some recent posts, from Rahm Emanuel's op-ed in today's WaPo:

"What remains to be seen is whether today’s far left is more interested in defeating Trump than it is in drumming moderates out of the Democratic Party...
Democrats shouldn’t lean into what Trump does poorly. We should offer a contrast — someone competent, balanced, thoughtful and capable of reaching across the aisle."

Questions: Is he right, is there such a person and will the post 2020 Congress be a help or hindrance?

Sorry, Rahm, but that is straight nonsense in 2019 politics. If any Democrat "reaches across the aisle", Mitch McConnell will shit in their hand. Any appeal to a centrist (i.e. Biden) is an appeal to losing in 2020. Trump isn't going to lose to a milquetoast candidate

[tinnitus photography]

Relevant to some recent posts, from Rahm Emanuel's op-ed in today's WaPo:

"What remains to be seen is whether today’s far left is more interested in defeating Trump than it is in drumming moderates out of the Democratic Party...
Democrats shouldn’t lean into what Trump does poorly. We should offer a contrast — someone competent, balanced, thoughtful and capable of reaching across the aisle."

Questions: Is he right, is there such a person and will the post 2020 Congress be a help or hindrance?

counterpoint to Rahm:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... 46c05c0bbc

[schlanky]

Relevant to some recent posts, from Rahm Emanuel's op-ed in today's WaPo:

"What remains to be seen is whether today’s far left is more interested in defeating Trump than it is in drumming moderates out of the Democratic Party."

That's an interesting way to look at it. I see it more being that for years moderates have stacked desks and chairs and whatever else they could in front of the doors to keep "today's far left" out of the room, but now a few have managed to slip inside.

And just how left exactly is "today's far left"? Have they been getting lefter and lefter all this time, or does it just look that way because the rest of the party has gradually slid farther to the right over the past decades?

This sounds like another one of those times when the moderates tell the progressives to fall back in line----that moderate Dem way of thinking that people should come to the party instead of thinking the party needs to come to the people.

Reaching across the aisle works just fine when you do all the stuff the Republicans want, but then it's rarely reciprocated. It takes two to tango, but if one partner refuses to dance, the one still trying to dance just looks like an idiot.

[tinnitus photography]

Relevant to some recent posts, from Rahm Emanuel's op-ed in today's WaPo:

"What remains to be seen is whether today’s far left is more interested in defeating Trump than it is in drumming moderates out of the Democratic Party."

That's an interesting way to look at it. I see it more being that for years moderates have stacked desks and chairs and whatever else they could in front of the doors to keep "today's far left" out of the room, but now a few have managed to slip inside.

And just how left exactly is "today's far left"? Have they been getting lefter and lefter all this time, or does it just look that way because the rest of the party has gradually slid so far to the right over the past decades?

This sounds like another one of those times when the moderates tell the progressives to fall back in line----that moderate Dem way of thinking that people should come to the party instead of thinking the party needs to come to the people.

Reaching across the aisle works just fine when you do all the stuff the Republicans want, but then it's rarely reciprocated. It takes two to tango, but if one partner refuses to dance, the one still trying to dance just looks like an idiot.

100%.