Politics/Slapfights - Ancient history to modern day!

[Raga]

Well, you have nothing to lose except inasmuch as election fraud is one of the chief tools of actual autocrats. Which is worse, a politician you hate that you can at least get rid of via elections if enough people agree with you or some Maduro like autocrat who both pursues policies you hate and who you can't even hope to get rid of short of armed revolution or foreign intervention? Democracies are fragile. I think people in the US very much underestimate how fragile because we happen to live in one of the oldest, most stable democracies in the world. And for all that people talk about "institutions" and "rule of law" as being essential components required for a democracy to work, a huge percent of its effectiveness really is down to some ethereal, indefinable belief that the population has in it. That faith is the easiest thing to undermine and the hardest thing to fix.

[Raga]

Really good photo-journal style article about flooding in a town in Maryland

[Vol]

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-bristol-50286473

The actual text of the article, that the breathless hot takes I saw missed, was that they wouldn't leave you to die if you harrange Dr. Pooinloo for not being a propah Bri'ish man. You'd be stabilized, then they'd boot you out. Which I assume means recovery, pain management, and possibly physical therapy? Regardless, total government control of healthcare is the golden path to utopia.

In a way, I support this policy. Because it might convince native Brits that, hey, all these great social programs are actually going to be actively hostile to you if you sit on your hands and do nothing while people who don't like you affect change. Also possible that this is a way to cut down on patients while spinning it as good PR, which is surprisingly Machiavellian.

On a related note, the PRC social credit score should be activating soon, no?

@Raga: If that faith is not reciprocated by the people who oversee the institutions, are we to ignore the lapses and pray harder because of the fragility?

[Raga]

@Raga: If that faith is not reciprocated by the people who oversee the institutions, are we to ignore the lapses and pray harder because of the fragility?

In a democracy that mostly depends on if you are in the minority opinion or not. You do in fact have to just take it for the democracy to work if most people disagree with you. And no, I have no ironclad rule for when extralegal or destabilizing resistance is warranted because "tyranny of the majority." I do know that for most issues that currently get people's knickers in a twist in the USA it's not.

I think it's also telling that the "undermine the vote" tactic has up to now mostly been used by people who not only lose but know that their core base is out on the poles and that they aren't getting the moderates they need. Stacy Abrams knows that uber progressives are a minority in Georgia. Kentucy governor was very unpopular even among conservatives and it's mostly just diehard Republicans who voted for him. When you can smell all your moderate support fleeing or at risk of fleeing, you resort to trying to pull rabbits out of hats.

[Vol]

In a democracy that mostly depends on if you are in the minority opinion or not. You do in fact have to just take it for the democracy to work if most people disagree with you. And no, I have no ironclad rule for when extralegal or destabilizing resistance is warranted because "tyranny of the majority." I do know that for most issues that currently get people's knickers in a twist in the USA it's not.

I think it's also telling that the "undermine the vote" tactic has up to now mostly been used by people who not only lose but know that their core base is out on the poles and that they aren't getting the moderates they need. Stacy Abrams knows that uber progressives are a minority in Georgia. Kentucy governor was very unpopular even among conservatives and it's mostly just diehard Republicans who voted for him. When you can smell all your moderate support fleeing or at risk of fleeing, you resort to trying to pull rabbits out of hats.

Good faith in their policies and a lack of personal malice towards me and mine seems a minimum baseline, I would say. Then we can ignore the wacky fringes. As for wedge issues, most aren't worth tossing the baby, or clump of cells if that's your style, out with the bathwater, but some are. Gun confiscation, free speech, mainly the issues where people aim to void parts of the Bill of Rights, in part or whole. Those are worth being irrationally militant about.

I would imagine the people on the poles believe the vote is fixed more deeply, because surely the sheeple can tell what's really going on, but watching the 2016 election and the primaries leading up to it, it was incredibly common to see all sorts bandying about why this result is bullshit because of reasons. Though it seemed more for morale than earnestness.

[Vol]

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/cu ... ap-908676/

I was going to assume it was silly clickbait to keep a dying brand afloat a little longer, but then scanning the article, they did actual research.

By virtue of the opposition, makes me wonder if there are some real benefits to not masturbating, beyond the obvious.

[Sinekein]

Imagine how viable an animal species with a limited birth rate would be if ejaculating was somehow detrimental.

[Vol]

Good point. However, the odds of any one sexual encounter with any one pair resulting in a pregnancy is not high. Semen takes time to build back up to "full," even though any given ejaculation could result in pregnancy. So in a utilitarian state, the "optimal" method for making babies is to have multiple men share a single woman, so the weight of numbers win outs. Putting aside the shape of the glans. And the odds of being a father would decrease with the number of ejaculations had within that window of replenishment.

So in the primal sense, where paternity isn't necessarily important so much as constantly having babies, then yeah. It would be detrimental. Couldn't really run a civilization that way, but our bodies predate that.

In the modern sense of 28%+ of young men having no sex ever, but an endless bounty of porn, there's probably some psychological damage done with the utter lack of intimacy but constant orgasms. Physically, doubtful.

[Vol]

Had an interesting talk with another contractor. Real NYC looking Italian guy. Said he was a lifelong Democrat until the Texas transgender boy case, where the courts demanded the father acquiesce to the mother's demands to transition him, because he has a little boy of his own. Now he's voting Trump. You sometimes forget that people don't pick their teams by sharing principles and such, a single issue can be enough to do a 180, I suppose.

Related, but apparently Stephen Miller, one of Trump's aides on immigration, and a Jew, has had his private emails leaked to the SPLC. Of course, I consider them vile liars and a hate-group, but these are small details. He apparently sent messages that fall in line with what the media thinks white nationalist are. It doesn't appear to be actual blatant pro-white stuff, as they're using weasel-words to explain his thought crimes. Otherwise I would think they would quote him verbatim, instead of indirect implicating that they love to use on Trump. Something about advocating to Breitbart The Camp of the Saints, an old French novel about the dangers of unchecked third world implication because of mindless empathy leading to the destruction of western culture and people.

If Americans can be convinced that "Native European populations should exist and not willingly erase themselves and their culture" is Nazism from a Jewish guy, we're going to need to the nobility to start a proper People's Daily so we can know what words mean.

[Mazder]

You sometimes forget that people don't pick their teams by sharing principles and such, a single issue can be enough to do a 180, I suppose.

I have said this for a long time that this is more often the case than you'd think.

[Vol]

I have said this for a long time that this is more often the case than you'd think.

Probably. People like me are an abject minority, and that's a good thing. Kinda.

Watching the public super-duper official impeachment sponsored by Peach Mints and the DNC inquiry hearing. So far, the Dems are trying to leverage the heresy from their witnesses into Trump helping Mother Russia consolidate Ukraine and this web of unofficial channels in Ukraine creating an extortion deal so they investigate Biden's boy to tank his campaign. The GOP is going with trying to demonstrate Ukraine and Biden are corrupt so it should be normal to ask them to investigate, and that the aide was ultimately given without the investigations and that the Ukrainians had no idea the aid was frozen at the time of the phone call.

It's really boring, as per normal of these political farces, but I'm sure both sides will be declared the victors. Though the implication that rival political candidates are immune from investigation with help of foreign powers is real fucking funny after 3 years of Mueller.

[Sinekein]

Though the implication that rival political candidates are immune from investigation with help of foreign powers is real fucking funny after 3 years of Mueller.

I feel like I should not have to explain, but there is a difference between an official investigation conducted by the U.S. government on a supposed misdemeanour - an investigation that, it seems, was conducted in a rather fair way since it didn't even manage to reach a definitive conclusion of either guilt or innocence, which a biased one from either side would happily have done - and the use of secret diplomatic channels, shady intermediaries and corrupt businessmen to try and find dirt on someone.

That's basically the difference between what happens in a democracy (the former) and what happens in a banana republic or a straight up dictatorship (the latter).

I am not sure you realize how much Trump has weakened the U.S. democratic system during his tenure with his stupidity, ignorance or complete disdain for rules and protocol. Now you will either have four more years of that nothingness because he is way too dumb to actually reform the country, or a Dem president which will be given a free pass by its base and its elected supporters to behave in the same stupid way if it so chooses, with "Fake News" being replaced by "Trump did it too so shut up" as the new way to end any kind of political criticism.

[Mobius_118]

The GOP has been flailing about trying everything except admitting they're wrong during this entire hearing.

It's pathetic. They've fallen so far since the Nixon years. To defend trump and the GOP now is pure stupidity distilled from dumbfuck juice.

[Alienmorph]

This is almost too perfect to be real.

[Vol]

I feel like I should not have to explain, but there is a difference between an official investigation conducted by the U.S. government on a supposed misdemeanour - an investigation that, it seems, was conducted in a rather fair way since it didn't even manage to reach a definitive conclusion of either guilt or innocence, which a biased one from either side would happily have done - and the use of secret diplomatic channels, shady intermediaries and corrupt businessmen to try and find dirt on someone.

That's basically the difference between what happens in a democracy (the former) and what happens in a banana republic or a straight up dictatorship (the latter).

I am not sure you realize how much Trump has weakened the U.S. democratic system during his tenure with his stupidity, ignorance or complete disdain for rules and protocol. Now you will either have four more years of that nothingness because he is way too dumb to actually reform the country, or a Dem president which will be given a free pass by its base and its elected supporters to behave in the same stupid way if it so chooses, with "Fake News" being replaced by "Trump did it too so shut up" as the new way to end any kind of political criticism.

You do understand it all began with foreign nationals who work/worked for foreign governments working with the Clinton campaign to gin up dirt on their political rival, which was then handed off to the Obama administration to begin official investigations and surveillance into a political rival, which then became the 3 year Mueller investigation, yes? Whereas Hunter Biden was on the board of directors for a company known for corruption, with dubious qualifications to be there, while his father was overseeing US policy in the country, and his father had the prosecutor investigating said company fired by threatening to withhold financial aid from their government. I do believe that if any rational person had it explained to them exactly what the situation was with the Bidens, they would agree that at the very least, investigation is warranted, which is why the thrust of all this is to not talk about it and try to spin hearsay into gold.

If a low-ranking member on the Trump campaign running his mouth in a bar overseas is enough to get FISA warrants and years of investigating, surely the appearance of blatant corruption should too, no?

Unofficial, not secret, as the 2 ambassadors established. I would think it's because Trump did not feel the official channels could be trusted. And he's completely right, as has been shown time and time again, and by the 2 ambassadors yesterday.

I am not sure you realize that we are a republic. The people have the choice in how our country acts by electing representatives. If they do not want us to be the international piggy bank and military shield for everyone else, then that is how it has to be, regardless of the wishes of appointed bureaucrats and other entrenched power structures. If not, and those two groups can in fact depose any one we do elect, up to and including the president, then it's a banana republic, and rule of law is irrelevant.

This is almost too perfect to be real.

"The historic Italian city has been brought to its knees this week by the worst flooding there in more than 50 years."

Wait, so how bad has the flooding been historically then? 50 years is inconsequential, you should have records going back millennia.

[Alienmorph]

Wait, so how bad has the flooding been historically then? 50 years is inconsequential, you should have records going back millennia.

We do. THere's only been about half a dozen or less floodings of Venice as catastrophical as the current one. Most of them happened within the last century tho.

But climate change is just a myth, am I right?

[Mazder]

Yeah, I am sorry Italy but maaaaybe you should do something about that fucking eyesore that is Venice being brought into the modern day.

As the Netherlands on techniques to reclaim land and give the city some actual foundations!

In all seriousness though I am rather saddened by the blatant ignorance on the stance of climate change.

Mind you I, for some reason, ahve been watching people debate flat earthers and...hooo boy are they a paranoid, ignorant and abusive bunch to debate.

[Alienmorph]

Yeah, I am sorry Italy but maaaaybe you should do something about that fucking eyesore that is Venice being brought into the modern day.

As the Netherlands on techniques to reclaim land and give the city some actual foundations!

In all seriousness though I am rather saddened by the blatant ignorance on the stance of climate change.

Well, the region around Venice has been a stronghold of the italian right and extreme right for literal decades. Everything costs more there, there's little to no limitations to tourists and big ships traffic, and the only attempt to do something long-term for the high water was a system of mobile barries named Moses, that was basically a giant money drain to make funds disappear in pockets of people who didn't have any right to them. There were I don't know how many people arrested and/or investigated for stealing funds and getting bribes during the damn thing construction. And it never, EVER worked properly once finished.

Like you said... we pretty much had half a century to build barriers like in the Netherlands, or come up with some alternative solutions. But that's what happens when the people in charge only care about fattening their bank accounts.

Mind you I, for some reason, ahve been watching people debate flat earthers and...hooo boy are they a paranoid, ignorant and abusive bunch to debate.

I do watch videos of people debunking flat-earthers, creationists and the likes now and then. If anything as a remainder to never become so close-minded and cultish as that kind of people can be. But an actual proper debate? I'd probably ragequit at the stupidity after a few minutes.

[Vol]

We do. THere's only been about half a dozen or less floodings of Venice as catastrophical as the current one. Most of them happened within the last century tho.

But climate change is just a myth, am I right?

See, that's more compelling than the usual data that gets trotted out. If that's true, then Venice is getting flooded more. So we then look at that data, look for trends, look at the physical changes to the area, that good stuff.

However, "climate change" is a brilliant label. It can never be wrong by definition. As if one of these "groypers" framed the theory of white genocide as "population change." It always changes, so anything that does or does not happens is further proof to the vast majority who are unequipped to look at raw data and abstracts.

Global warming, easy to point out areas where it wasn't getting warmer, show faults in the methodology, etc. Global climate change, what can you say? It's always changing, sometimes rapidly, so you're fucked if you want to argue it. Colder, hotter, wetter, dryer, anything but perfect stasis, which never happens in nature, and the theory is right.

[Vol]

I don't even know what the inquisitor was going for today. Some lady who made a living on the public teat complained she was fired, everyone on her side tried to imply Trump's malice, then puffed up her "service." Meanwhile Schiff refused to let the GOP have a fair shake in questioning, what with this inquiry being ad hoc and entirely controlled by him. Today was character attack day, or something. I was half-listening, but firing a lady in the State department that the new Ukrainian president didn't like isn't impeachable, I hope.

[Joblom]

Mind you I, for some reason, ahve been watching people debate flat earthers and...hooo boy are they a paranoid, ignorant and abusive bunch to debate.

A little while back I watched Flat-Earth videos for about a week. It is interesting to see their arguments, some of which on the surface level can at times seem reasonable. Of-course they are not difficult to debunk and in the process you can learn something about physics. As well, I find some of the designs for the various Flat Earth theories to be interesting for world design in fictional settings that I like to think about writing up.


Unrelated to the truth of the Flat Earth, I came across this video last week and listened to it at work. Not precisely new information for me, but an informative if depressing assessment of the modern day and its historical echoes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3khNU5zktg

Ultimately what killed any potential interest I had in socialism was the realization that a free person is not somebody who has everything provided for them. I've known for years that a government which can provide everything can also take it away, but I don't think I fully absorbed this lesson until I started comparing adults to children. A well cared for child has everything provided but they aren't free, are they? Of-course not nor should they be, but the child may well enjoy their life. No real wants, no real responsibilities. Governments which give their citizens everything and the movements which advocate for this are trying to turn adults back into children. The consequences are obvious.

[Mazder]

Ultimately what killed any potential interest I had in socialism was the realization that a free person is not somebody who has everything provided for them. I've known for years that a government which can provide everything can also take it away, but I don't think I fully absorbed this lesson until I started comparing adults to children. A well cared for child has everything provided but they aren't free, are they? Of-course not nor should they be, but the child may well enjoy their life. No real wants, no real responsibilities. Governments which give their citizens everything and the movements which advocate for this are trying to turn adults back into children. The consequences are obvious.

Except ion that analogy children are still developing. It is only natural to limit their potential in some areas for their own safety, but a bad parent will limit in the wrong areas, as would a bad government.
If a parent is abusive by not providing accurate access to medical care then they are a bad parent.
If a government does not provide and accurate access to healthcare they are a bad government.

Outright socialism is bad as it's as unchecked as full capitalism/facsim.
The checks and balances are what turns a good parent from a bad parent.

Yeah, a child might be freer with access to all foods under the sun, but a good parent would educate them on what is good and bad levels of nutrition.
A government can also allow the same for their citizenry under capitalism, but they could also have accurate and accessible education on nutrition in schools, or straight up have the good nutrition in said schools. I mean, it's obvious that kids lunches at schools in some places are worse than in the overbloated prison systems america has.
This is not where the priorities go, but are led by capitalist agendas.

Plus, children can at least learn if given the tools and education, both of which are funded by a more socialist government system rather than capitalist. For profit should not be the manner in which you begin to educate anyone. It will not matter how much money the school is making the companies you've outsources meals and education materials out to when they're all dumb as bricks because they're still taught prayer in schools because the church payed for the education slot.

I do not think restrictions are the same as lack of freedoms.
Currently the USA has "freedom" but it's healthcare system for the individual patient is terrible, propping up a massive pharmaceutical corporate environment that profits form them more than it provides for them. It also gouges medical staff and does not encourage there to be more made.
Yet with a medicinal system like the NHS the average citizen would have more access to basic medical care. You don't have to get rid of the insurance systems for those who can afford it and want to pay for it, but there must be a basic medical care for all. That is a human right. Any government that does not provide that is a bad government.
Yes, it's not a perfect solution, but it's a much more manageable solution in regards to actually making sure the populace is cared for.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YC_-q1pWnw

Wew lads.

[Raga]

This wacko won a national book award a few years ago. As far as I can tell, this guy is the up and coming Ta-Nehesi Coates, or the go-to popular prophet the press likes to turn to on all matters to do with race. I even tried reading his first book a while back and he really is as unambiguously ideological as this article makes out.

Under this framework, any discussion of divergence in outcome at all between races which do not consist entirely of "the difference are because racism" are themselves ipso facto racist and thus worth no reaction other than rote dismissal. And of course, any policy that succeeds in removing the divergence is ipso facto antiracist no matter what the actual tactics of the policy are.

This is why people on the right have started talking about "woke capitalism" and "soft totalitarianism." It's easy to dismiss it as so much hot air and conspiracy mongering, but then guys like this keep popping up. And receiving prestigious awards.

[Vol]

science.jpg

From a recent summit on the Microsoft campus of business leaders, activists, and such.

So these sorts of "wackos" are in fact being recognized and given platforms in front of people with power and influence. Makes them a more immediate threat, with their blind faith and moral compulsions.

[Mobius_118]

9 hours of republicans without credibility trying to discredit subject matter experts on the topic of the Ukraine bribery.

Nunes getting the "It's Lieutenant Colonel" when he talked to the LTC was classic. Fuck Nunes. And fuck Jordan.

[Vol]

https://youtu.be/84-Ki4Po6c4?t=21

Only caught the last parts of yesterday's, but did get a lot of today's. "Well, your honor, we have plenty of hearsay and conjecture, those are kinds of evidence." Same as the previous guys Schiff allowed to testify, albeit this one actually talked to Trump at points. Obviously, as this isn't a criminal process, they're going to vote on partisan lines, with the Democrats in purple areas having to throw to bones. It's honestly impressive how they're trying to depose a president on such a flimsy case, the GOP would never have the balls to do this. It must be nice to be a Democrat voter. If nothing else, at least they fight for you, no matter what.

https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/press-c ... 25831.html

Well now this is awkward. They're actually investigating the corruption, gotta impeach Trump even quicker or they might find something.

https://www.businessinsider.com/hunter- ... st-2019-11

Also a little pettiness.

[Raga]

Just a kind of idle thought after a conversation with my sister. How much of the sort of average, purplish non rube voter's (Never Trumpers, various civic libertarians, nonpartisan professionals and elites) hatred of Trump really is down to nothing but the fact that he's undignified and rude? That if he had exactly the same policies but was intelligent, suave, and competent, they wouldn't give two shits?

I think that explains a huge percentage of it. He's tracking mud on the carpet and it just looks very bad and they can't stand it.

I mean to a point this is understandable. This is what the functional purpose of moderates is: to get their feathers ruffled over violations of decorum and exert their power to get all the pesky, loud radicals to stay between the lines. It's just not something I really thought about before.

The downside to this is that the moderates are naturally pushing leftward as a corrective to Trump because even the wild-eyed, Einstein-hair Democrats like Bernie Sanders currently have more decorum than Trump. And when the elite, powerful moderates move they pull all the apathists who just go with the tide along with them.

If it's true though, it might be hopeful evidence of the middle holding against a tide of partisan lunacy because once Trump is gone, they might not feel as compelled to keep pushing leftward.

[Mobius_118]

Clinton's impeachment was based on hearsay. Dumbfuck's impeachment is based off of more than just hearsay.

[Raga]

Obviously, as this isn't a criminal process, they're going to vote on partisan lines, with the Democrats in purple areas having to throw to bones.

My rep is actually a Republican in a purplish area and he actually sent out a poll to constituents' via email and then released the results. It's unclear if he was actually fishing for insight on what he should do or if it was just insurance because he was confident voters would return results of whatever he was going to do anyway. Still it was surprising to actually get to have some kind of even symbolic say. I live in a laughably gerrymandered district that awkwardly straddles urban, suburbs, and overt countryside but the whole lot has been getting bluer. He might be getting nervous. Actual letter:

"Dear Friend,

House Democratic leadership is focused on pursuing impeachment of our president. All the while, major issues like border security, health care and trade take a back-seat to an obsession with removing President Trump from office.

I want to know how you feel about this issue. Please take one minute and complete the following survey. It will help me serve you better.

(Note: By taking this survey you are subscribing to Representative Olson's newsletter)


Should House Democratic leadership continue their impeachment inquiry of the President?
Yes
No

In both the Nixon and Clinton impeachments, formal inquiries did not begin until the full House of Representatives had the chance to vote on the matter. Was it right for House leadership to begin hearings on an impeachment inquiry before allowing a full vote in the House of Representatives?

Yes
No

Do you think Republicans need to do more to support our president during the impeachment inquiry?

Yes
No

Do you think working on issues like border security, health care and trade should be the priority of Congress instead of impeachment?
Yes
No

Do you support impeaching President Trump?
Strongly support impeachment
Support impeachment
Unsure
Oppose impeachment
Strongly oppose impeachment

Click to open in a separate window
I'm honored to be your Representative in Congress. For more information on constituent services, current legislation and to sign up for my E-newsletter, please visit my website at http://www.olson.house.gov.


Very respectfully,
Pete Olson"

[Sinekein]

It's honestly impressive how they're trying to depose a president on such a flimsy case, the GOP would never have the balls to do this.

They would definitely have the balls to do that if a Dem president was dumb enough to pull illegal stuff so brazenly. They have been exactly as obstructive against Obama as the Democrats are agains Trump right now, but since Obama actually had at least a double-digit IQ, they had to resort to your usual set of tools - filibustering, etc.

If a Democrat president hands proof of illegal actions or misconduct to a Republican chamber, the odds of them pulling the exact same thing are roughly 100%.

Just a kind of idle thought after a conversation with my sister. How much of the sort of average, purplish non rube voter's (Never Trumpers, various civic libertarians, nonpartisan professionals and elites) hatred of Trump really is down to nothing but the fact that he's undignified and rude? That if he had exactly the same policies but was intelligent, suave, and competent, they wouldn't give two shits?

Trump's policies are deeply related to his stupidity, total lack of empathy, and barely-veiled racism and sexism. And his success came from the many 'Muhricans who felt like they could openly be douchebags now that the man in charge behaved like they always dreamed to.

So the thought is roughly the same as wondering if Republicans would have been less incensed by Obama had he not been black, since his success was built on being black.

[Raga]

Trump's policies are deeply related to his stupidity, total lack of empathy, and barely-veiled racism and sexism. And his success came from the many 'Muhricans who felt like they could openly be douchebags now that the man in charge behaved like they always dreamed to.

So the thought is roughly the same as wondering if Republicans would have been less incensed by Obama had he not been black, since his success was built on being black.

Um, I'm talking about moderates. They were never upset that Obama was black. If anything, they liked it because his presidency proved that the current system works even for historical underdogs and thus why does it need radical change?

*Edit* But on the topic of Obama, the reason he succeeded with the middle was because he was a black man who mostly didn't talk about it. If he had been some kind of Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton type individual, he would have riled up the entirety of the Republican base over race issues *and* a hefty chunk of moderates for the same reason they hate Trump: decorum violations.

[Vol]

Huh. Pete is really doing poorly with blacks. So he's leading in Iowa, in the pits in SC. Progressives are split with Bernie and Warren, Biden's weak, but can get out the Negroes more than a gay guy apparently. Weird primary. Then you have Bloomberg and other vultures circling. I'm really not sure how it's going to shake out anymore.

Stream for tonight's debate: http://ustv247.tv/msnbclive/

Just a kind of idle thought after a conversation with my sister. How much of the sort of average, purplish non rube voter's (Never Trumpers, various civic libertarians, nonpartisan professionals and elites) hatred of Trump really is down to nothing but the fact that he's undignified and rude? That if he had exactly the same policies but was intelligent, suave, and competent, they wouldn't give two shits?

Probably all the Never Trumpers, honestly. He's not a neocon per se, but he's not a radical. So, you know, he'll send billions to countries for theoretical "soft power," but also try to stem immigration. So if he was able to put on airs, they'd probably quietly disagree with him. And then for the proper non-partisans, his attitude is probably most of why they'd dislike him. I appreciate the value of a strong, stoic, controlled leader, and the lack thereof can be grating, even annoys me at times. But the issue with the right has been, consistently, the approved demeanor coincides with being mocked and denigrated regardless.

As for your email, those are for polling/fundraising. I've been getting them from everyone, even ShareBlue, since this nonsense began. It might affect how vigorously the rank and file defend Trump based on the results, but the internal GOP polls still has Trump has ~95% approval.

Clinton's impeachment was based on hearsay. Dumbfuck's impeachment is based off of more than just hearsay.

It was perjury, followed by an actual impeachment process, where Democrats were allowed to take part, then the GOP fumbled the Senate vote and got blown out in the next election because nobody cared about him fucking Monica and lying about it. Bighand McFullheadofhair's is entirely hearsay and conjecture, as no one has claimed they have first hand evidence or experience with him, nor has a specific impeachable offense been given. Thus why we're having an inquiry controlled by one man, as opposed to a proper House investigation.

They would definitely have the balls to do that if a Dem president was dumb enough to pull illegal stuff so brazenly. They have been exactly as obstructive against Obama as the Democrats are agains Trump right now, but since Obama actually had at least a double-digit IQ, they had to resort to your usual set of tools - filibustering, etc.

If a Democrat president hands proof of illegal actions or misconduct to a Republican chamber, the odds of them pulling the exact same thing are roughly 100%.

They really wouldn't. The best defense they put up against Obama was sitting on their hands while he rained EOs around them. Meanwhile, Trump tries to repeal one, and the Dems stymy the fucking memo for 3+ years. They got pet judges to rule against anything he tries, just so it'll have to slowly work up the judicial chain. They run whatever investigations they want, subpoena and arrest whoever they want, it's _aggressive_ and effective. Meanwhile, GOP's righteous indignation ends at having to exercise power.

[Raga]

Huh. Pete is really doing poorly with blacks. So he's leading in Iowa, in the pits in SC. Progressives are split with Bernie and Warren, Biden's weak, but can get out the Negroes more than a gay guy apparently. Weird primary. Then you have Bloomberg and other vultures circling. I'm really not sure how it's going to shake out anymore.

Whoever wins the black voters of the South in a bloc will probably win the nomination. Numerically speaking, they are the Democrat kingmakers. So far, that looks good for Biden.

[Vol]

Whoever wins the black voters of the South in a bloc will probably win the nomination. Numerically speaking, they are the Democrat kingmakers. So far, that looks good for Biden.

Probably, but listening to him speak tonight, he's looking like Hillary, held together with smoke and mirrors. But they need the black vote, which Trump is doing outreach for, and apparently doing decent with. Though black women are the bread and butter of Democrats, which I assume Trump's not getting anything from.

[Raga]

So apparently Joe Biden stutters which explains at least some of his tongue-tiedness. I didn't know this. Specifically, he apparently combats it by substituting in a word he hangs on with another word which makes him look like he forgot the first word. So he'll hang on, say, "Obama" and then sub in "my boss" after hanging on the word, making him look like an idiot who can't remember Obama's name.

Of course that doesn't explain truly epic ones like:

"I've known three presidents. Two intimately."

[Vol]

It's impressive that we're only finding this out now. Must've worked hard to suppress it.

https://www.sportsbettingdime.com/polit ... ment-odds/

Current odds look about 68%, which sounds right. Dems are pretty well committed, for better or worse. Candidates spouted off on it, media's been trying to redo Watergate since before inauguration, and the faceless masses are on board.

[TheodoricFriede]

Current odds look about 68%, which sounds right. Dems are pretty well committed, for better or worse. Candidates spouted off on it, media's been trying to redo Watergate since before inauguration, and the faceless masses are on board.

Impeached or convicted?

Because I feel like I could make some money here.

[Raga]

There's pretty much no chance of conviction unless somebody unearths video footage of Trump torturing kittens or something.

[Vol]

Impeachment. 2/3's chance seems a good bet, since the inquiry has failed to affect Trump's base or the greater public perception. Whatever has the least loss of face, which I would think would be not hold the formal vote, but maybe it'll rally the base for 2020? I can't tell what the plan is.

Though they could probably swing a simple majority in the Senate. Fail at conviction, but the press/Democrats _love_ the power of bandying the word "majority."

[Mobius_118]

Like I said, if a second-hand account was good enough to impeach Bill, testimony from the people directly involved who are experienced veterans with decades of knowledge is more than enough.

Swaying conservatives isn't really the point anymore. They ignore reality and avoid the truth. Now it's about impeaching the turd and showing how the GOP will sacrifice everything just to maintain power, including their loyalty to the nation.

After the impeachment is over and trump is ousted, then it's conviction. No executive privilege will protect him. Pence is implicated as well, so he'll likely get got. Or he'll resign because he doesn't know shit about his job.

And trump is pushing that Ukraine conspiracy theory that they interfered with the election, not Russia again.

Every intelligence agency has insurmountable evidence that Russia interfered with the election. This isn't hard.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Mobius continues to show us that reality is currently dealing with 1 screen two entirely different movies.

He represents a very clear example of late stage TDS in the American context. He's been absolutely certain that every Dem tactic since MUh Russia would be the one to stop Trump. None of which have worked. But he's going to keep believing that every new tactic will be the one that works right till 2024.

[TTTX]

They ignore reality and avoid the truth.

well so does the Left so pot meet kettle.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

They ignore reality and avoid the truth.

well so does the Left so pot meet kettle.

The world has to be utterly good versus evil though.

Because if it isn't Mobius would have to come to terms with being such a monumental douchebag to so many people for so long.

[Mobius_118]

Ok.

You seem to think nazi's were socialist so your opinion is moot, GAC.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Uh huh. That means a hell of a lot coming from the guy who thinks fucking ROADS are socialist.

[Mobius_118]

I have yet to see privately funded infrastructure. The US has been operating under a form of Democratic Socialism since it's inception.

We've had this talk before, GAC. You are consistently wrong on the subject, yet you strut around like you won just because you call me a cuck, plug your ears, and go LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU when I prove you wrong.

You're always so emotional. Maybe you should go take a minute to compose yourself.

[TTTX]

I have yet to see privately funded infrastructure. The US has been operating under a form of Democratic Socialism since it's inception.

We've had this talk before, GAC. You are consistently wrong on the subject, yet you strut around like you won just because you call me a cuck, plug your ears, and go LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU when I prove you wrong.

You're always so emotional. Maybe you should go take a minute to compose yourself.

Infrastructure (which roads fall under) have existed long before democracy even existed, so I wouldn't call it socialism as a country, town, city, etc can't function without infrastructure after all North Korea also have roads but they aren't democratic at all.

[Alienmorph]

Hell, democracy has been the exception rather than the rule for most of human history. Yet here we are.

Doesn't make people who want to live under a regime or in a police state right, of course. But talking in hyperboles doesn't get us anywhere either.

[Vol]

https://www.theblaze.com/news/new-jerse ... a-petition

Assuming this is the whole story, and the guy in question didn't threaten actual violence, "I will expose your botched surgery to the media at your home" is grounds enough to have a warrant served against you and your legal firearms stolen. At least until the case is resolved, he may get them back but that they were taken to begin with is ridiculous.

Though even if the government waved away the entire Bill of Rights tomorrow and started doing whatever their handlers wanted, most of us would go along with it anyway. This idea of natural rights only works if they're actively and viciously defended, which they are not.