How would that work?
American Politics thread: No Nazis Allowed
-
How would that work?
I've often wondered about that myself; seems like being supported by people who only want you there so the world can end in fire (with you going to Hell in the process) would be somewhat off-putting
3DS Friend Code 0044-2806-5284
-
How would that work?
Not sure that it would, unless Chuck Schumer were to step down in her favor.
Waldorf: You know Statler, after watching the last one thousand episodes of One Piece, I think I've come to a conclusion.
Statler: No you haven't.
Both: DOHOHOHOHOHO!
-
I'm all for is. Schumer isn't exactly winning the country any favors by constantly getting outplayed by Mitch.
I'm admittedly super depressed Bernie isn't doing better, and Warren's campaigh ended up poorly, so I'm looking for the good side of things. On that note, I'm also depressed that I'm trying to look towards the good side of Biden.
Before anyone comments, I'm not even ready to imagine Trump winning a second term. :ninja:
-
Durbin is next in line for leadership after Schumer.
-
Does Tulsi Gabbard gets a lower payment from her Russian bosses when she fails at her task?
-
I'm all for is. Schumer isn't exactly winning the country any favors by constantly getting outplayed by Mitch.
Well that and being one of the people constantly trying to play it off like Israel is some weak and aggrieved country that has to be protected from the evils of Iran and Palenstine.
-
Trump is heavily implying that the uninsured will be given coronavirus treatment for free, which puts him to the left of Biden and Pelosi on the issue of healthcare and will probably be an effective way to capture some Sanders and Warren voters if Biden wins.
!
-
Trump is also telling people on a cruise ship infected with the virus to not make landfall because it wpuld be bad for the numbers.
At least your post doesn’t make you sound like a Trump apologist or anything.
-
Trump is heavily implying that the uninsured will be given coronavirus treatment for free, which puts him to the left of Biden and Pelosi on the issue of healthcare and will probably be an effective way to capture some Sanders and Warren voters if Biden wins.
Are you
Are you fucking kidding me.
-
Sorry for suggesting a political ploy by the world's greatest con-man might work, and the Democrats should really be doing something to counter it instead of pushing for treatment to be merely affordable.
You guys complain a lot about the ten percent of Bernie suppoters who didn't vote for Hillary, but you're getting mad at me for pointing out an opportunity to help nip that in the bud?
Edit:
Alright… I can see how five years of presidential gaslighting and Russian interference is making everyone more paranoid, to the point where it's only natural to jump to conclusions about who's being honest and who isn't.I've suffered the same way and eventually had to cut back on news consumption because hearing all the horrible things that Trump has done and feeling the need to argue with people who defend him irrationally despite the mountains of easily digestible evidence against him is just really bad for my sanity.
We should try not to rush to judgement without good cause, though.
-
Does Tulsi Gabbard gets a lower payment from her Russian bosses when she fails at her task?
If she is, she's definitely in for a paycut now that she's probably out of the next debate:
New qualifications for next debate likely rule out Gabbard
https://apnews.com/55661d0f1edf9e18d950ad80cfee2a74
The Democratic National Committee has ratcheted up the threshold to qualify for its next presidential debate, requiring candidates to have picked up at least 20% of convention delegates allocated in state primary contests.
The new rules announced Friday for the March 15 debate in Arizona will allow former Vice President Joe Biden and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders to participate but will likely exclude Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard.
Gabbard has struggled to attract support in the contest and has picked up only two delegates — from the U.S. territory of American Samoa, where she was born. By comparison, Biden has more than 660 delegates, while Sanders has over 570.
A two-person debate would be the party’s smallest yet. Ten previous debates had at least six candidates, but many candidates have dropped out since then. Only Biden, Sanders and Gabbard remain in the Democratic race.
The DNC’s new rules require a candidate to meet the delegate threshold by March 15 and pick up more delegates in elections to be held Tuesday in a handful of states, including delegate-rich Michigan.
The party said it will calculate the delegates awarded by adding together those allocated in counts by The Associated Press or CNN to all candidates, including those who were awarded delegates in earlier states but have since dropped out of the race.[[/quote]
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
For some non-primary news:
[https://whatthefuckjusthappenedtoday.com/2020/03/06/day-1142/
[h=1]](https://whatthefuckjusthappenedtoday.com/2020/03/06/day-1142/)Day 1142: "Contained."[/h]
1/ The Trump administration claimed that the coronavirus outbreak was “contained” even as the number of U.S. cases have surpassed 250 – more than double since Monday – and test kits remain in short supply. Federal officials initially said nearly 1 million tests were expected to be available by the end of this week. While the CDC has refused to share how many people have been tested for COVID-19, a survey of public health agencies in every state could only verify 1,895 Americans who had been tested for the virus. About 10% of them tested positive. In California – population 40 million – has the capacity to test about 7,400 people through the weekend. About 1,250 Californians were possibly exposed to coronavirus on a cruise ship – 21 people have tested positive for coronavirus out of the 46 tested so far – and there are more than 9,000 people in California who recently returned from countries experiencing severe outbreaks. California, however, has only tested 516 people for COVID-19 to date. Nevertheless, Kellyanne Conway told reporters that “It is being contained,” challenging a reporter who suggested it isn’t. “Are you a doctor aware of it not being contained?” Trump’s top economic adviser, Larry Kudlow, echoed Conway, saying the outbreak “looks relatively contained.” (Bloomberg / The Atlantic / Los Angeles Times / Washington Post)- COVID-19 Factoids:
- 100,000 people have been infected worldwide, according to Johns Hopkins University.
- 15 people in the U.S. have died from coronavirus.
- At least 44 people in New York state test positive for coronavirus – up from 23 yesterday. A 5th person tested positive for coronavirus in New York City.
- The virus has been reported in 20 new states: Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Wisconsin.
- Live Blogs: New York Times / Washington Post / NBC News / CNN
2/ Trump abruptly canceled – then rescheduled – a planned trip to CDC headquarters in Atlanta. Trump said the trip was scrapped because of a suspected coronavirus case at the CDC itself. The White House, however, said the visit was canceled because “the president does not want to interfere with the CDC’s mission to protect the health and welfare of their people and the agency.” The report of an infection at CDC turned out to be negative and the trip was rescheduled. CDC staffers learned about potential coronavirus case at the agency only after Trump mentioned it to reporters. Trump is slated to go to Atlanta after touring tornado damage in Tennessee and before heading to Mar-a-Lago for the weekend. (Politico / New York Times / Associated Press / NBC News)
3/ Trump signed an $8.3 billion emergency funding package to combat the rising number of coronavirus cases in the U.S. The bill provides a total of $7.7 billion in new discretionary spending and authorizes an additional $490 million in mandatory spending through Medicare. “You have to be calm,” Trump said at the White House. “It will go away.” (Bloomberg / Politico / BBC / The Guardian)
4/ White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow said the Trump administration is considering “timely and targeted” relief to help workers and businesses economically vulnerable to the outbreak. Kudlow insisted that the U.S. economy is “fundamentally sound,” but Trump administration officials have considered deferring taxes for sectors most affected by the outbreak, including the hospitality, cruise, travel and airline industries. Southwest Airlines CEO Gary Kelly said “what we’re seeing is a drop off in domestic travel […] It has a 9/11-like feel.” More than 1,000 planes have been taken out of service worldwide and airline stocks have fallen 28% since the coronavirus outbreak began. Global airlines stand to lose $113 billion in sales. Meanwhile at a Fox News town hall, Trump said he “likes” that “people are now staying in the United States, spending their money in the US […] They’re sort of enforced doing that.” (Washington Post / Axios / Wall Street Journal / The Hill / CNN / Vox)- The University of Washington moved its 50,000 students to online classes. (New York Times)
5/ The Trump administration plans to collect DNA samples from undocumented immigrants held in U.S. detention facilities. Under the new rule, the Department of Homeland Security can collect DNA samples from non-U.S. citizens who are detained for criminal offenses in federal facilities. The samples would be put into a database operated by the FBI for federal, state, and local authorities to use to identify and locate violent criminals who are in the country illegally. Officials said the collection effort will fully enforce the 2015 DNA Fingerprint Act, which requires taking DNA samples from anyone arrested, facing charges or convicted — and from any non-U.S. citizens “who are detained under the authority of the United States.” The Department of Homeland Security, however, asked for an exemption from the law during the Obama administration, saying it did not have the manpower to gather the samples. (Wall Street Journal / Bloomberg / NBC News)
6/ The Trump Organization charged the Secret Service $157,000 more than was previously known and billed taxpayers for rooms at his clubs at much higher rates than the company claimed. Newly obtained documents show Trump’s company charged the Secret Service more than $628,000 since he took office in 2017. The full scope of the Trump Organization’s business relationship with the Trump administration is still unknown because the only publicly available records are mostly from 2017 and 2018 — the rest are still hidden. The new documents show charges for 177 additional nightly room rentals in 2017, 2018, and 2019 at a rate of $396.15 per night per room. They also reveal that Trump charged the Secret Service $17,000 per month to rent a cottage near Trump’s in Bedminster, NJ. There is no requirement that presidents charge the Secret Service for using space on their properties, and most presidents have provided space for free. (Washington Post / Public Citizen)
Day 1114: The Trump Organization charged Trump’s Secret Service rates as high as $650 a night and $17,000 a month for a cottage at his properties to protect him. The disclosures contradict Eric Trump’s own statements that “If my father travels, they stay at our properties for free.” At Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Club, the Secret Service was charged the $650 rate dozens of times in 2017, and a different rate – $396.15 – dozens more times in 2018. At the Trump National Golf Club Bedminster, the Secret Service was charged $17,000 a month to use a cottage in 2017. The Trump Organization also billed the government for days when Trump wasn’t there. The full extent of the Secret Service’s payments to Trump’s company is not known. (Washington Post)
7/ House Democrats asked a federal appeals court to reconsider enforcing a congressional subpoena for Trump’s former White House counsel Donald McGahn. Last week, an appeals court panel ruled 2-1 that the House may not ask judges to force the White House to make McGahn available for testimony. Today, House lawyers argued that blocking lawmakers from suing to obtain information from the executive branch would leave Congress with little choice but to “direct its sergeant at arms to arrest current and former high-level executive branch officials for failing to respond to subpoenas.” (Politico / Washington Post)
- Day 1135: A federal appeals court ruled that former White House counsel Donald McGahn does not have to comply with a subpoena seeking his testimony. The House wanted McGahn to answer questions related to possible efforts by Trump to obstruct Robert Mueller’s investigation. (Politico / CNBC / New York Times)
8/ The deputy White House communications director resigned. Adam Kennedy will leave his position to go work in the private sector at the end of the month. He was one of the few remaining original Trump White House staffers. (Bloomberg / Politico)
- More than a third of all Senate-confirmed civilian positions at the Department of Defense are now vacant or filled by temporary officials – a new high for the Trump administration. (Politico)
-
Sorry for suggesting a political ploy by the world's greatest con-man might work, and the Democrats should really be doing something to counter it instead of pushing for treatment to be merely affordable.
Political ploys like that only work with the participation of people amplifying them who should know better after years of this nonsense but clearly don't. Not just in the media but people who claim to be on the Left but uncritically regurgitate claims by Trump that are not only transparently false but require him going against his basic nature.
Hell, he just tried to increase CDC funding by slashing subsidies for heating oil for the poor. You honestly think that any "free" testing or care for the coronavirus wouldn't come as the direct result of somebody else suffering?
Complicating things since 2009.
-
Political ploys like that only work with the participation of people amplifying them who should know better after years of this nonsense but clearly don't. Not just in the media but people who claim to be on the Left but uncritically regurgitate claims by Trump that are not only transparently false but require him going against his basic nature.
I didn't uncritically regurgitate anything, and the source I cited was David Pakman who spent a good chunk of the video talking about how horrible Trump's handling of the Coronavirus is.
It's also not out of Trump's nature to throw a few bones to the electorate in order to make them like him at key times and distract from all the horrible things he's said/done/lied about.
If his corrupt mess of an administration can somehow pull off paying for coronavirus diagnosis and treatment for a decent chunk of infected people, he can spin it as "crisis averted!" and attempt to shove all of his other coronavirus screw ups under the rug (which will somehow work just like all the other times he's done it).
Hell, he just tried to increase CDC funding by slashing subsidies for heating oil for the poor. You honestly think that any "free" testing or care for the coronavirus wouldn't come as the direct result of somebody else suffering?
Well, no.
He wants to win the election, not actually help people.What did I say that implied otherwise?
-
That's what I have to keep telling myself to make biden seem even a little palatable.
-
To me it's pretty straightforward, neither Biden nor Sanders have faults so great they make a second term of Donald Trump look like a reasonable alternative.
Waldorf: You know Statler, after watching the last one thousand episodes of One Piece, I think I've come to a conclusion.
Statler: No you haven't.
Both: DOHOHOHOHOHO!
-
I'm a lot more worried about Trump refusing to step down if he loses to Biden (or refusing to step down in 2024) than I am about the Democratic Party leadership's problems.
…Or whatever else happens if he wins.
-
I didn't uncritically regurgitate anything, and the source I cited was David Pakman who spent a good chunk of the video talking about how horrible Trump's handling of the Coronavirus is.
It's also not out of Trump's nature to throw a few bones to the electorate in order to make them like him at key times and distract from all the horrible things he's said/done/lied about.
If his corrupt mess of an administration can somehow pull off paying for coronavirus diagnosis and treatment for a decent chunk of infected people, he can spin it as "crisis averted!" and attempt to shove all of his other coronavirus screw ups under the rug (which will somehow work just like all the other times he's done it).
Well, no.
He wants to win the election, not actually help people.What did I say that implied otherwise?
Dude, quit forwarding Trump propoganda. You keep putting out his statements as a matter of fact and actual intent, without using ANY critical judgement at all towards his actual history or patterns. e's not going to give shit for free, he's just promising it. Same way he promised "better healthcare that you pay less for" but the process stopped at "try to cancel the thing that has Obama's name on it" and there was no step 2. Or "we will build a trillion dollar wall and have Mexico pay for it and haven't thought of any logistics on this at all, but I know people who can do it cheap, trust me."
Show some discerning judgement before you parrot things, this is why everyone says you're a Trump supporter. Because you're blindly saying "hey, this is a good idea if he can pull it off… and I think he totally means it this time!" because it means you're assuming he actually has any intention to try and you haven't kept up with the 40,000+ lies he's told in office.. You are by implication, making his statement valid and fair and like an actual agenda he has and not just word spew... which is going hand in hand with him massively downplaying and lying about the virus in the first place.
-
To me it's pretty straightforward, neither Biden nor Sanders have faults so great they make a second term of Donald Trump look like a reasonable alternative.
Biden being mentally compromised and easily manipulated by those around him is a genuine concern for me…especially the longer into his presidency we would get.
-
Dude, quit forwarding Trump propoganda. You keep putting out his statements as a matter of fact and actual intent, without using ANY critical judgement at all towards his actual history or patterns. e's not going to give shit for free, he's just promising it. Same way he promised "better healthcare that you pay less for" but the process stopped at "try to cancel the thing that has Obama's name on it" and there was no step 2. Or "we will build a trillion dollar wall and have Mexico pay for it and haven't thought of any logistics on this at all, but I know people who can do it cheap, trust me."
Show some discerning judgement before you parrot things, this is why everyone says you're a Trump supporter. Because you're blindly saying "hey, this is a good idea if he can pull it off… and I think he totally means it this time!" because it means you're assuming he actually has any intention to try and you haven't kept up with the 40,000+ lies he's told in office.. You are by implication, making his statement valid and fair and like an actual agenda he has and not just word spew... which is going hand in hand with him massively downplaying and lying about the virus in the first place.
I had to really think about what was going through your head when you wrote this, because I'm getting really sick of hearing people claim that I'm a Trump supporter for reasons that don't make any sense to me, and it's only been like one day.
You're taking the least charitable possible interpretation of what I said on the most surface level without any context and just running with it.
The intent of the post was "Oh crap this is going to be Trump's strategy isn't it? I really hope the Democrats do something to counter it because I have no faith in them whatsoever after this incredibly shameful and soul-destroying primary cycle."
…And just now, having typed that out, it hit me.
You people think I'm a Trump supporter because I worry about him constantly, see the things he says as the next possible huge disaster and share them hoping vainly that somebody will do something about it.
It comes across as me praising him because I'm inflating everything he says and does as a threat.Is that it?
I'm really confused about why none of the people I talk to outside of AP have ever reacted that way, though.
-
Because you don't WRITE that. Maybe when you talk to people you say things differently or with a specific tone that gets that across, but that is never ever how or what you present here.
Trump is heavily implying that the uninsured will be given coronavirus treatment for free, which puts him to the left of Biden and Pelosi on the issue of healthcare and will probably be an effective way to capture some Sanders and Warren voters if Biden wins.
No commentary, no critique, no saying where you got it from, no presentation of the fact you're aware he's just lying. Just you presenting "Trump has an idea!" followed by "that makes him similar to other candidates and will be a good way to get supporters".
There is no other way to interpret that.
Then you did clarify, which is fine, but THEN you followed THAT up with
I didn't uncritically regurgitate anythings.
even though thats exactly what you did.
, and the source I cited was David Pakman who spent a good chunk of the video talking about how horrible Trump's handling of the Coronavirus
You cited nothing. Where did you say that? Is it in the video? People generally don't bother watching the video unless they're given a reason to.
-
It seems like it's just a miscommunication error between you guys. No reason to pollute the thread with this nonsense. Maybe don't jump to conclusions next time though, Robby?
Gonna give ya the D.!
-
No commentary, no critique, no saying where you got it from, no presentation of the fact you're aware he's just lying. Just you presenting "Trump has an idea!" followed by "that makes him similar to other candidates and will be a good way to get supporters".
There is no other way to interpret that.
I'm actually worried he's not lying and that it will work as an election strategy, but maybe it was too much to assume that the video that I posted would indicate where I got it from.
@The:
It seems like it's just a miscommunication error between you guys. No reason to pollute the thread with this nonsense. Maybe don't jump to conclusions next time though, Robby?
Yeah, good point.
This is over and done with and I'm glad it had a happy resolution.
-
None of the Democrat candidates are appealing for me to vote for. Biden is like Donald Trump while Sanders is too old and frail that he won't last 4 years in office.
I definitely know who to vote for this year and I hate to say it, as much as I dislike Trump, I'm casting my vote on him. Let me explain my little history. Back in 2012, I voted for Mitt Romney so Obama would leave office but that never happened but I got a gut feeling Obama was going to stay for another 4 years.
Back in 2016, I voted for Hillary Clinton so Trump will not win, however like with Obama I got a gut feeling that Trump is gonna win however I ignored it and guess what folks? That orange ape won.Yet I knew they would pull a Bill Clinton on the impeachment trial and I had gut feeling that Trump is going to win re-election..
I'am tired of casting my votes basing on emotions, they always ends up wrong and I'm not going to cast my vote on lesser candidates. At this point, Trump is the sigh only "credible" man to stay president until 2024 and hopefully by then the Republicans and Democrats finally realize they need to change and select better candidates that can do the job.
I've been criticizing Trump on my Facebook, can't wait to criticize him another four years. To be fair though I criticized Obama in the past and other presidents as well.
Currently writing a book
-
Look, if you don't like any of them and don't want to vote for any of them could you just… not vote for Trump at least? Like everyone always says make sure you vote, but if you're actively doing it as just a spite pick and don't want them there, then stay out of the process entirely, don't contribute to making it worse.
If you want to vote on local stuff you can still do that and leave the top of the ticket blank. Like I posted just above, you're NOT just voting for the pres, you're voting for lots of things under them like very likely the next supreme court judge and environmental regulations. (If we don't get seriously going on global warming we're going to run out of time, 2024 is too late to get started on serious reforms.)
Don't vote based on emotion, look at actual policies and vote based on facts.
Like CHILDREN IN CAGES.
-
I'm a lot more worried about Trump refusing to step down if he loses to Biden (or refusing to step down in 2024) than I am about the Democratic Party leadership's problems.
…Or whatever else happens if he wins.
The constitution doesnt allow him to do shit if he loses, don't be too paranoic.
-
The constitution doesnt allow him to do shit if he loses, don't be too paranoic.
The constitution is a piece of paper.
It's only functional while it's enforced, so the question is: if Trump refuses to obey the law, who will force him to leave office when he's legally required to go?
The answer is hopefully the military.
-
The constitution is a piece of paper.
It's only functional while it's enforced, so the question is: if Trump refuses to obey the law, who will force him to leave office when he's legally required to go?
The answer is hopefully the military.
The guy from Infowars makes more sense.
If Biden wins, Biden is the president, no longer Trump.
-
Look, if you don't like any of them and don't want to vote for any of them could you just… not vote for Trump at least? Like everyone always says make sure you vote, but if you're actively doing it as just a spite pick and don't want them there, then stay out of the process entirely, don't contribute to making it worse.
If you want to vote on local stuff you can still do that and leave the top of the ticket blank. Like I posted just above, you're NOT just voting for the pres, you're voting for lots of things under them like very likely the next supreme court judge and environmental regulations. (If we don't get seriously going on global warming we're going to run out of time, 2024 is too late to get started on serious reforms.)
Don't vote based on emotion, look at actual policies and vote based on facts.
Like CHILDREN IN CAGES.
I get what you are saying there and I agree with that. I must point out that I'm a very cynical person who does not go into certain logics like this. Plus people getting deported happens under every presidents. Children being locked up in cages is terrible, why are the Democrats not hard pressing the president to release them?
-
The guy from Infowars makes more sense.
If Biden wins, Biden is the president, no longer Trump.
I do agree with you on this one, but the constitution also says congress can remove an incompetent president from office. That didn't go so well because the people responsible for doing so refused to do their duty to the country. So yes, the human factor is very much important for whether or not what's in the constitution even matters.
Gonna give ya the D.!
-
@The:
Maybe don't jump to conclusions next time though, Robby?
I take it you didn't follow the 2016 thread much.
Complicating things since 2009.
-
I take it you didn't follow the 2016 thread much.
I only recently started being active in the forum as a whole, so no. But I was referring to the particular instance I saw, not anything that happened in the past. Can we not do this though? I'm not interested in the interpersonal bullshit of forum members. This isn't the place for it anyway.
-
@joekido:
None of the Democrat candidates are appealing for me to vote for. Biden is like Donald Trump while Sanders is too old and frail that he won't last 4 years in office.
I definitely know who to vote for this year and I hate to say it, as much as I dislike Trump, I'm casting my vote on him. Let me explain my little history. Back in 2012, I voted for Mitt Romney so Obama would leave office but that never happened but I got a gut feeling Obama was going to stay for another 4 years.
Back in 2016, I voted for Hillary Clinton so Trump will not win, however like with Obama I got a gut feeling that Trump is gonna win however I ignored it and guess what folks? That orange ape won.Yet I knew they would pull a Bill Clinton on the impeachment trial and I had gut feeling that Trump is going to win re-election..
I'am tired of casting my votes basing on emotions, they always ends up wrong and I'm not going to cast my vote on lesser candidates. At this point, Trump is the sigh only "credible" man to stay president until 2024 and hopefully by then the Republicans and Democrats finally realize they need to change and select better candidates that can do the job.
I've been criticizing Trump on my Facebook, can't wait to criticize him another four years. To be fair though I criticized Obama in the past and other presidents as well.
Did I read wrong, or are you saying you'll be voting for "the orange ape" simply because you think he's going to win, so why bother voting for anyone else? That's not right Sir. Biden is weak, yes. Biden, at best, will just keep things as is, while also trying to restore some of what Trump broke. But do you realize just how much damage Trump can do for another four years? No one, not even Bloomberg, are capable of that kind of destruction.
-
The constitution is a piece of paper.
It's only functional while it's enforced, so the question is: if Trump refuses to obey the law, who will force him to leave office when he's legally required to go?
The answer is hopefully the military.
It's not about Trump's refusal to leave office that I'm worried about, it's his support base that just might be crazy enough to support his refusal to leave office.
@Robby:Actually, you're just voting.
-
I'm a lot more worried about Trump refusing to step down if he loses to Biden (or refusing to step down in 2024) than I am about the Democratic Party leadership's problems.
…Or whatever else happens if he wins.
I say this after having felt the same thing about Trump being elected, but I don't think this could possibly happen, and it it were to, it would be the beginning of a vastly different America. A United States in which a president doesn't step down becomes a United States at war, which becomes a United States vulnerable to all of its greatest enemies. There's probably enough dumbasses around the states that would support Trump trying dumb shit like that, but the military leaders are nowhere near that stupid, even if it was a means toward martial law. We have too many enemies and the cost of huge mistakes is too high.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
@Kaba:
It's not about Trump's refusal to leave office that I'm worried about, it's his support base that just might be crazy enough to support his refusal to leave office.
I'm not worried about Trump not leaving office, but I am worried that if Trump were to lose, they would respond with violence. As much as the right parroted talking points about the left's response to Trump's election back in 2016 and 2017 as being unfounded, they were mostly peaceful. Antifa might through a wrench into that idea, but I don't think they were anywhere near full steam by that point.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
Trump is heavily implying that the uninsured will be given coronavirus treatment for free, which puts him to the left of Biden and Pelosi on the issue of healthcare and will probably be an effective way to capture some Sanders and Warren voters if Biden wins.
!
I imagine that if Trump were to seriously propose this, Biden and Pelosi would go more to the left. I don't think he will because this has happened before. He seemed to be more left than the GOP on the trans bathroom issue but pretty quickly changed his mind. I doubt he'll go against those with power and money now, either.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
@joekido:
None of the Democrat candidates are appealing for me to vote for. Biden is like Donald Trump while Sanders is too old and frail that he won't last 4 years in office.
Biden is much more to the left than Trump and isn't a racist pig who assaulted women. I think that's enough of a difference.
I definitely know who to vote for this year and I hate to say it, as much as I dislike Trump, I'm casting my vote on him. Let me explain my little history. Back in 2012, I voted for Mitt Romney so Obama would leave office but that never happened but I got a gut feeling Obama was going to stay for another 4 years.
Back in 2016, I voted for Hillary Clinton so Trump will not win, however like with Obama I got a gut feeling that Trump is gonna win however I ignored it and guess what folks? That orange ape won.So I have a few questions here. First, why did you vote against Obama in 2008? Romney is a much more principled man than Trump in theory, but the political results of either being president wouldn't be much different. Also, what's the relevance of the gut feeling about Obama? Yeah, he won, what does that have to do with your vote?
As for 2016, it seems you saw Trump as a piece of shit and voted against him. Are you conservative? That's fine, but what did you see in Trump that made him so unpalatable then, that has changed now? Also, again, i don't understand you referring to the gut feeling. Is your goal to always vote for who will win, or are you voting for who you think will better govern the country?I'am tired of casting my votes basing on emotions, they always ends up wrong and I'm not going to cast my vote on lesser candidates. At this point, Trump is the sigh only "credible" man to stay president until 2024 and hopefully by then the Republicans and Democrats finally realize they need to change and select better candidates that can do the job.
It truly sounds like you're tired of voting for who loses? Who gives a fuck if you are voting on your principle?! Is Trump's immorality really more credible than Bernie's age or Biden's political similarity to Trump? (which is silly) As for the Democrats and Republican's selecting better candidates, they tried! Trump was no one's choice, even the rotten ass GOP. They would have much rather had Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, or Jeb Bush. The Dems were certainly for Hillary in 2016, but lots of their preferred candidates made it to Super Tuesday. (Kamala Harris, who was a great candidate, Cory Booker, Julian Castro) Shit happens, America will merica.
I've been criticizing Trump on my Facebook, can't wait to criticize him another four years. To be fair though I criticized Obama in the past and other presidents as well.
If your critiques of Trump are so hollow that you can't convince yourself, I don't understand what the point is.
-
@The:
I do agree with you on this one, but the constitution also says congress can remove an incompetent president from office. That didn't go so well because the people responsible for doing so refused to do their duty to the country. So yes, the human factor is very much important for whether or not what's in the constitution even matters.
The Constitution says that whoever wins in November is president at noon January 20th, there's no human element there beyond Trump squatting in the Lincoln bedroom.
-
@Cyan:
The Constitution says that whoever wins in November is president at noon January 20th, there's no human element there beyond Trump squatting in the Lincoln bedroom.
Did you just forget about the part where I agreed that trumpy will have to leave office or something? It's literally the first part of the first line in my comment. I was making a broader comment on the constitution's relevancy to the current administration with the rest of it.
-
For Status Quo oligarchs, is even better if Biden wins this one time.
That'll make him the candidate in 2024 also, making Bernie have to wait 8 years for his next chance, can his heart resist 8 years without doing any funny stuff??That way, you get rid off both the fascist and the populist in one hit.
Bernie: The only progressive politician in America.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
@The:
Did you just forget about the part where I agreed that trumpy will have to leave office or something? It's literally the first part of the first line in my comment. I was making a broader comment on the constitution's relevancy to the current administration with the rest of it.
A Trump trying to stay illegally in office would have to have the backing of the intelligence and military.
Ask yourself if he's made big friends in those realms.
-
Lol joekido has to be trolling right?
-
Sorry for suggesting a political ploy by the world's greatest con-man might work, and the Democrats should really be doing something to counter it instead of pushing for treatment to be merely affordable.
Greatest con-man suggests Trump is shrewd and intelligent though.
I know it's hard to accept but you can have an entire community/enterprise fall under the sway of an addled brained belligerent clown through a series of bad luck and absurd chance. I wouldn't rush to credit him with some special ability that played the game.
-
@Monkey:
Greatest con-man suggests Trump is shrewd and intelligent though.
I know it's hard to accept but you can have an entire community/enterprise fall under the sway of an addled brained belligerent clown through a series of bad luck and absurd chance. I wouldn't rush to credit him with some special ability that played the game.
He literally bumbled his way into leading a die hard cult of lunatics, lol. I often wonder what sort of faustian deal he made to have such incredible charisma that somehow only affects stupid people.
Gonna give ya the D.!
-
Stupid people hate brown people. Trump said brown people are bad. That's it.
I will say Trump has a sort of base cunning and he knows how to play to his base effectively. These neo-fascist figures often pivot to the left on some social issues. That is certainly one of the reasons they are doing so well around the world lately. Trump also has a lot of energy to do rallies all the time (because it's pretty much the only thing he enjoys about being a politician).
-
Stupid people hate brown people. Trump said brown people are bad. That's it.
I will say Trump has a sort of base cunning and he knows how to play to his base effectively.
You're giving him a bit too much credit especially when he makes such gaffes as "I love the poorly educated" which in a way is actually not wrong given the limited mental faculties of the people who vote Republican but….
-
Its the way the winds are blowing nowadays, it ain't too hard to just go with the flow and be or say whatever the broadest userbase wants to hear. Especially if you yourself have no genuine stance on anything
-
@The:
He literally bumbled his way into leading a die hard cult of lunatics, lol. I often wonder what sort of faustian deal he made to have such incredible charisma that somehow only affects stupid people.
He racismed his way into large tea party support and won the primary the same way he did the presidency, winner-takes-alling states.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
You're giving him a bit too much credit especially when he makes such gaffes as "I love the poorly educated" which in a way is actually not wrong given the limited mental faculties of the people who vote Republican but….
Lots of educated people vote Republican, most of them are rich and racist. Almost all of them were white. Trump literally started his policial career with birtherism. He's a white supremacists and MAGA is code word for let's get back to when we didn't have to hide our disdain for the dark skinned.
edit: I should rephrase Republican with Trump
-
^ Lots of educated people do vote Republican lot of stupid people (who are stupid usually do do the former getting elected or lobbying for cuts to education) also vote Republican.
-
@Monkey:
Greatest con-man suggests Trump is shrewd and intelligent though.
I know it's hard to accept but you can have an entire community/enterprise fall under the sway of an addled brained belligerent clown through a series of bad luck and absurd chance. I wouldn't rush to credit him with some special ability that played the game.
I think he actually is really good at conning and trolling people.
It's just that his stupidity, narcissism, lack of academic skill, inability to accept help from or trust others, severe paranoia, lack of self-restraint, drug addiction etc… all make him totally incapable of gaining any other skills relevant to the presidency.
Tricking a hundred million stupid people into supporting him for years despite his incredibly obvious flaws is not an easy task.
If you want proof, look at how he's able to lure the media away from talking about real scandals by saying stupid shit on twitter and pulling wacky stunts like sharpiegate.
-
I don't actually know if trumpy is a racist or a white supremacist, but he's using them to advance his own political career and that's just as bad in my opinion.
Gonna give ya the D.!
-
@The:
I don't actually know if trumpy is a racist or a white supremacist, but he's using them to advance his own political career and that's just as bad in my opinion.
He has a long history of racism so I'm pretty confident that he's a legitimate racist.
If you go back and look at the 2016 Republican Primary debates, he comes across as a much more convincing racist than everyone else.
