Jump to content
Ansem

General US Politics

Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, Glennstavos said:

Yeah, since the deal was made back in the summer, I don't think skimping on the amount of vaccines was part of the "salted earth" initiative Trump is accused of committing. But then why skimp on vaccines in the first place, is the operative question. They can't cost all that much. Maybe it was just an optimistic projection that the virus would "dry up" in the winter or some other such unrealistic expectation parroted in the white house?

Dumb vitriol aside, the US bet on multiple horses, as other countries have done. The US bought 100m doses of the Pfizer, Moderna and J&J vaccines each, and 500m of the Oxford vaccine. That's enough to inoculate 400m people.

edit: the vaccine buy is probably the one thing about this pandemic that the US didn't screw up.

Edited by Excellen Browning

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Jotari said:

True, but people are also meanwhile so virulently against Trump at the same time that there's something of a cult of anti personality that would have people jump at any opportunity to oust him. Multiple people here have stated they basically would even if they had exclusive knowledge knowing he did win the election fair and square

Hey, what about my answer?  ;/

Joking aside, we have a running record of what Trump has done.  Much of it is dishonest.  Therefore, he'll need a much higher burden of proof before I even think about believing him, as opposed to someone who isn't a proven liar.  This has nothing to do with a cult against Trump, and everything to do with basic human interaction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump being right about winning "by lots and lots" is just so unbelievable that I can't engage with the premise of the question. If the question was more like "what if the national popular vote was accurate, but Trump secured narrow victories in Georgia, Wisconsin, Arizona, and one more of Nebraska's to make 270 electoral votes. So this hypothetical is ~100,000 cumulative votes in these states added to the record by "deep state hackers" to create the results we see now, similar to how Trump won by a margin of 100,000 votes in "the right states" four years ago. No, I would not come forward with that information. Because the electoral college system is an affront to democracy and I would not be responsible for "another 2016" where one candidate secures millions more votes and loses to a system that values the votes of some people over others. 

A hypothetical where Trump's lawyers are right about the scale of voter fraud being exponentionally higher than anything seen in any comparably democratic election ever, is just...Like when a friend asks you "would you kill somebody for a million dollars?" then you answer no, then they say "okay but what if the person is literally Hitler and you're going back in time?" That's about the same grip on reality we're dealing with here

Edited by Glennstavos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, eclipse said:

Hey, what about my answer?  ;/

Joking aside, we have a running record of what Trump has done.  Much of it is dishonest.  Therefore, he'll need a much higher burden of proof before I even think about believing him, as opposed to someone who isn't a proven liar.  This has nothing to do with a cult against Trump, and everything to do with basic human interaction.

I believe the hypothetical suggested irrefutable evidence from a reliable source and not Trump or his cronies and assumes that you ARE convince it's true. I understand not wanting Trump in power but there comes a time where you just have to stop trying to do what you think is best for others if they're that unwilling to and if it did turn out that Trump did actually win, hiding that from the public will just come with consequences when it's eventually found out and I don't think that's shit we need to add when Democrats themselves are already so good at losing and screwing up the narrative.

The election cycles are the time to chime in and push forward candidates throwing out ideas... that time is past and the people just decided to "play it safe" and simply focus on beating Trump and that's the end of the story.

Edited by Dr. Tarrasque

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

I believe the hypothetical suggested irrefutable evidence from a reliable source and not Trump or his cronies and assumes that you ARE convince it's true. I understand not wanting Trump in power but there comes a time where you just have to stop trying to do what you think is best for others if they're that unwilling to. The election cycles are the time to chime in and push forward candidates throwing out ideas... that time is past and the people just decided to "play it safe" and simply focus on beating Trump and that's the end of the story.

What's more believable, the "source" being in league with the guy who's willing to do whatever it takes to win, or a truly neutral third party?

If this was a different election cycle (say, 2008), it would be easier to believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, eclipse said:

What's more believable, the "source" being in league with the guy who's willing to do whatever it takes to win, or a truly neutral third party?

If this was a different election cycle (say, 2008), it would be easier to believe.

Obviously I would be skeptical about the whole thing and press to make sure I can consider the source reliable and to be telling the truth. I read the Mueller Report unlike the GOP Senators, I don't take shit at face value or argue something without having looked at opposing AND supporting evidence when it comes to politics.

My point is that for the sake of discussion in that hypothetical, assume you've vetted this source and that YOU yourself have come to accept that they are indeed reliable and telling the truth you're not fond of: that Trump actually did win. I assume the hypothetical is not about some other loon claiming they have evidence, it's about having the truth you don't like and whether or not you'd tell the truth.

Edited by Dr. Tarrasque

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/24/2020 at 7:54 PM, Crysta said:

GOP: We stole the court
DEMs: We're gonna steal it back
GOP: That's not fair
Pundits: Not fair
GOP: We'll just steal it more
DEMs: Ok we won't do it
Pundits: Dems avoid destroying America
GOP: We're gonna steal it more
DEMs: Fuck!
Pundits: So MuCh FoR tHe ToLeRaNt LeFt
Voters: ThEy'Re BoTh BaD hOw CaN i ChOsE

I HATE IT HERE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Jotari said:

True, but people are also meanwhile so virulently against Trump at the same time that there's something of a cult of anti personality that would have people jump at any opportunity to oust him. Multiple people here have stated they basically would even if they had exclusive knowledge knowing he did win the election fair and square

If using the one half of my brain to make sense of the nonsensical goings-on in his administration and assess the cumulative damage his influence deals to democratic institutions constitutes being in a cult of anti-personality, WHERE THE FUCK DO I SIGN UP?

Seriously, 45 is a case study in how NOT to be a despot. True, he admires just about every authoritarian regime in the world (including the one I live in) and seeks to emulate them, but he goes about the proposition (luckily for you guys, because you stand a good chance to undo the damage--it'll be arduous, but not impossible) in the most inept of ways. Just check out how he's asking, sorry, demanding states to disenfranchise millions of voters, and even the most loyal of his satraps are realizing the draconian task they are faced with, all to curry the favor of this Paragon of Ineptitude. Would performing this task be worth it? Too few have leapt at the opportunity (thankfully), and you can even say that the scales (momentarily, at least) fell from their eyes.

Edited by Karimlan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Karimlan said:

If using the one half of my brain to make sense of the nonsensical goings-on in his administration and assess the cumulative damage his influence deals to democratic institutions constitutes being in a cult of anti-personality, WHERE THE FUCK DO I SIGN UP?

 

There is truth to the notion that there are anti-Trumpers as extreme as the worst of the pro-Trumpers can be. Say what you will about the right in the US but if you're part of the left, you're no better if you defend or say something is bad when you'd normally support it if your candidate backed it simply because the right hates it or you hate Trump.

At a time where partisanship is so out of wack and only getting worse thanks to this fucking moron, that kind of behavior (defending something because the right hates it or objecting to something simply because Trump is doing it) only exacerbates the issue of partisanship and as demonstrated above by Crysta, the media is quick to help Republicans by caving in to Republican whining and then play the "both sides" card.

If the Democrats want to stop that shit, they need to be better at building a narrative that speaks to people by class rather than race as well as starve Republicans of political ammunition and let them sink in their stupid civil war over the election and always demonstrate when it is the Republicans destroying and assistance to regular people.

Trump being removed from office and even if he gets jailed doesn't solve anything, it's just a reprieve from that stupid clown.

Edited by Dr. Tarrasque

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I stand by my comment.  Trump would completely destroy democracy and America if given another 4 years, these last few weeks should make that obvious.  Had he not pulled the crap he is doing now with stealing the election, maybe I'd feel differently.  Before the election I would blame it on American stupidity but accept the result if Trump won, however if I'm given the information that Trump actually won and I have the power to put him back into power.  Hell no.  Never. 

I agree Democrats need better messaging and all that, but more than that they have to be harsh and cold.  Republicans can get away with anything cause Democrats are so damn soft, they can order investigations on the most nonsensical crap like Hunter Biden, or 5 on Benghazi or Obama's birth and get no blowback.  Yet if Democrats want to investigate actually serious crime committed by a Republican it's a 'witch hunt', no truth and other BS.  They were so scared to impeach Trump, when if Obama pulled what Trump we would be sitting through impeachment hearings every single day of his two terms.  EVERY DAY.  They would get no blow back either.  Remember Al Franken, he had an inappropriate photo and fellow Dems forced him to resign.  Katie Hill cause she was photographed with another woman and holding a bong, same result.  Then we have pedophile Gym Jordan, insider traders Lloefler and Purdue and the GOP puts no pressure on them for resignation....they never do.  Lower your standards, get more power, and legislate.  

The biggest mistake Biden can make is offering olive branches to these traitors.  I'm talking of Congress members who support Trump's claims and stayed silent during his coup attempt.  You can't starve Republicans of political ammunition, they'll make up stuff if they have to they always do.  Obama wore the wrong suit, Obama wasn't born here, Obama is a Muslim, Bin Laden is still alive, and a bunch of other crap.  Republicans keep punching Democrats in the face with their supporters cheering them on, while Democrats sit there and take it or say "That isn't how we do things".  Democrats damn softness is almost as much to blame for Trump as Republicans enabling.  You punish and pushback on everything that orange piece of crap does constantly, repetitively.  Focus more on his ridiculous insulting executive orders, bills, and firings than what he says (though attack him on that too). You make them sorry they even tried, you punish them politically and legally if possible as much as possible.  You don't have mercy on an opponent that has none.  

Want the Republican party to have less power.  You call them out on their BS constantly, don't even entertain it.  You make them look like the traitorous scum they are and Insult them for even making up such crap and not in the "Oh dear, what is this world coming from, that isn't civilized"  No in a much more base Trumpian way, insult their morals, their intelligence call them fascists if you have to.  They have no qualms calling Democrats Socialists/Communists.  Want to fearmonger, people are scared of Fascism and nazis too.  When Dems have power, mercilessly use it to take more power like the Republican do (as with the SC stuff).  Laugh at their complaints of being unfair.  

Trump being gone doesn't end things, Trumpism is a cancer on the Republican party and thus on the country.  So you root it out completely, brutally and mercilessly.   Then the time for civility can return.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The older Democrat wing is very concerned with optics and margins and Republicans have no problem manipulating the former because they rarely get punished in any significant way for lying and manufacturing outrage for whatever dumb cultural issue they've decided to focus on that day. The media doesn't do them any favors because their bottom line is profit, and there's always profit to be had in showcasing a mudfight.

AOC is as influential as she is mostly because she takes Republicans to task routinely and the most they can do is complain that she was once a bartender and that she tweets too much. They've been trying to turn her into the next Pelosi/Clinton but I'm not sure it's going to work versus a progressive who is coherent and unapologetic lol

But her own party will stress out about how she's alienating the more moderate branch and oh no what if that drives voters into the arms of the fascists aaaaaaa

Edited by Crysta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, eclipse said:

Hey, what about my answer?  ;/

Joking aside, we have a running record of what Trump has done.  Much of it is dishonest.  Therefore, he'll need a much higher burden of proof before I even think about believing him, as opposed to someone who isn't a proven liar.  This has nothing to do with a cult against Trump, and everything to do with basic human interaction.

Yeah, all this.

12 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

I believe the hypothetical suggested irrefutable evidence from a reliable source and not Trump or his cronies and assumes that you ARE convince it's true. I understand not wanting Trump in power but there comes a time where you just have to stop trying to do what you think is best for others if they're that unwilling to and if it did turn out that Trump did actually win, hiding that from the public will just come with consequences when it's eventually found out and I don't think that's shit we need to add when Democrats themselves are already so good at losing and screwing up the narrative.

The election cycles are the time to chime in and push forward candidates throwing out ideas... that time is past and the people just decided to "play it safe" and simply focus on beating Trump and that's the end of the story.

The idea behind the question more blatantly put is "Would you stick to loftier principles if faced with something that is both completely contrary to your assumptions and your interests." The how of it is pretty immaterial. My other go to example would have been having Biden present and confessing to the whole thing behind closed doors with an option to flick a switch to start recording a live stream of him. But it could be a genie or psychics for all the actual relevance it has to the real meat of the question.

Edited by Jotari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Supposedly, American political parties change roughly every 30 years.

  1. From Washington (1792) to the Era of Good Feelings ending in 1824 you've the first system of Federalists and Democratic Republicans.
  2. Followed by Whigs and Democrats from Jackson (1828) through the 1850s which culminates in the dissolution of the Whigs, the formation of the Republicans, and the explosive goodbye called the Civil War (1860).
  3. Starting at the Civil War and going through the Gilded Age ending in the election of 1896 is the third American party system.
  4. McKinley (1896), Theodore, Taft, Wilson, and the three Roaring Twenties presidents are the ones who presided over the fourth party system.
  5. The Great Depression (1929) results in the New Deal, which fundamentally changes the Democrats and the role of government and hence creates a fifth party system.
  6. The end of the "Consensus" era of American politics due to Vietnam, civil rights, counterculture, and the Republicans going racist in the late 1960s would be about when things shift over to a sixth system.

After this, things get too fuzzy and too recent to identify if there has been a shift. But as I said at the top, these supposed changes happen about 30 years. If 1968 and the election of Nixon marks the start of the sixth party system, then 2000 would be the general election that marks the end of the sixth and start of the theoretical seventh.

Except, does it feel like we're in the seventh still, or have we gone past that point? Going back to the second system, its last decade, which we could say we're in for the seventh, did see the Whigs die off shortly after 1850, and yet the system wasn't entirely dead until 1860. The current dissolution of old Republicanism may soon likely be completed, but it may take until the 2024 Republican primaries with whomever it nominates to officially confirm it I suppose.

How the Democrats emerge at the end of this historical cyclical construct based on real events, I do not know. But they may be changed, and if they are, I can only hope it's for this country's betterment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

Supposedly, American political parties change roughly every 30 years.

  1. From Washington (1792) to the Era of Good Feelings ending in 1824 you've the first system of Federalists and Democratic Republicans.
  2. Followed by Whigs and Democrats from Jackson (1828) through the 1850s which culminates in the dissolution of the Whigs, the formation of the Republicans, and the explosive goodbye called the Civil War (1860).
  3. Starting at the Civil War and going through the Gilded Age ending in the election of 1896 is the third American party system.
  4. McKinley (1896), Theodore, Taft, Wilson, and the three Roaring Twenties presidents are the ones who presided over the fourth party system.
  5. The Great Depression (1929) results in the New Deal, which fundamentally changes the Democrats and the role of government and hence creates a fifth party system.
  6. The end of the "Consensus" era of American politics due to Vietnam, civil rights, counterculture, and the Republicans going racist in the late 1960s would be about when things shift over to a sixth system.

After this, things get too fuzzy and too recent to identify if there has been a shift. But as I said at the top, these supposed changes happen about 30 years. If 1968 and the election of Nixon marks the start of the sixth party system, then 2000 would be the general election that marks the end of the sixth and start of the theoretical seventh.

Except, does it feel like we're in the seventh still, or have we gone past that point? Going back to the second system, its last decade, which we could say we're in for the seventh, did see the Whigs die off shortly after 1850, and yet the system wasn't entirely dead until 1860. The current dissolution of old Republicanism may soon likely be completed, but it may take until the 2024 Republican primaries with whomever it nominates to officially confirm it I suppose.

How the Democrats emerge at the end of this historical cyclical construct based on real events, I do not know. But they may be changed, and if they are, I can only hope it's for this country's betterment.

Well I hope whatever happens in the future whatever two parties end up battling it out end up having better names. Because calling the two leading parties in a democratic republic the Democrats and the Republicans is just plain silly. Course a parliamentary system would be way better than two parties that gradually become completely counter to each other on every issue.

Edited by Jotari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was just wondering about something.

I hear Trump might run for president again in 2024, if I heard right the republicans get to pick who will represent their party. Who actually gets to make this choice? And if he's not chosen to run by the republicans, can he still run as independent? Would he do so and would he stand any chance?

Just wondering about things here, would be interesting if that would actually get the USA out of this 2 party system. Trump would actually do something good with his life, even if unintentional... (or Don jr if Trump goes to prison.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would argue that we're still basically in the shift that occurred as a result of the civil rights act. The post-Obama era just stands out so much because you now have Republican officials saying the quiet parts out loud and still getting reelected when in the past the strategy in the party is to appeal to the racists without coming off as racist yourself.

The racists are all in for the Republican party while the "moderates" or those willing to change their minds are cautious about the Democrats because to some extent, the Democrats do show some entitlement of the non-white vote and again, they're really bad when it comes to having a good narrative specially when the mainstream media was so hellbent on going against Bernie and pushing Biden forth and the right-wing media often gets a field day with dumb shit lefties do online which puts people off and leads them to think right-wing pundits speak the truth.

12 minutes ago, whase said:

I hear Trump might run for president again in 2024, if I heard right the republicans get to pick who will represent their party. Who actually gets to make this choice? And if he's not chosen to run by the republicans, can he still run as independent? Would he do so and would he stand any chance?

I don't think he would win as an independent. He may end up splitting the vote and probably getting more states than the Republican candidate thus topping George Wallace as the most successful 3rd party run in history while at the same time fucking things up for the GOP.

It's uncertain though because it's also not impossible for him to win if the Democrats put forth a shitty candidate and they're pretty good at that. Biden doesn't look like someone who will dispel the grievances the country as a whole has with our politics, only a small reprieve from Trump and the perpetuation of what everyone hates.

Edited by Dr. Tarrasque

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jotari said:

Course a parliamentary system would be way better than two parties that gradually become completely counter to each other on every issue.

I thought most political scientists agree that a parliamentary system is better, even the American scholars in the field. More "checks" in the American system, but it's more legislatively constipated too (which is sad when it's the good stuff that doesn't get done).

As a rather unserious thought, I wonder if Trump would prefer a parliamentary system. Sure, he'd no longer have as many of the rituals of state due to a figurehead of some kind for that role, but isn't there usually a shadow government in parliament whose potential PM come the next election can harangue the actual PM on a daily basis? Trump loves stealing attention, him at one of those UK "Prime Minister's Questions" sessions sounds like an idea a political cartoonist could have some fun with.

 

1 hour ago, whase said:

I hear Trump might run for president again in 2024, if I heard right the republicans get to pick who will represent their party. Who actually gets to make this choice? And if he's not chosen to run by the republicans, can he still run as independent? Would he do so and would he stand any chance?

The presidential primary system is simple.:

  • Starting at the end of 2023 and continuing into the election year, the Republican parties of each state hold primaries and caucuses, during which people can vote on who they want as their party's nominee. 
    • Depending on the state, it is possible only registered Republicans can vote in a primary/caucus.  In other states, it is possible for people of any party or no party at all to vote on who they want as the Republican party's candidate.
    • Provided you filled out the proper paperwork in advance, anyone can run for the nomination.
  • The person who actually gets the nomination is whoever, as a result of the state primaries, wins the most delegates and crosses the necessary minimum threshold of them.
    • If nobody has enough delegates to earn the nomination by the time of the Republican National Convention held in the summer, and there is a last patch of delegates and political rigamarole will pick the nominee. 

The Democrats use a similar system. The primaries function even in years wherein the current President of the United States is of the party and is eligible to run again, although you'd have to really disliked or controversial within the party to lose the nomination if you want it, so it has never happened.

Critics of the primary process say that low voter turnout in the process means it favors the more hardline elements of the party. However, one could argue the opposite that the party elite, although they're not supposed to interfere, are able to manipulate things to a preferred outcome, which is usually more centrist. Trump in 2016? Maybe a failure of the party elite. Biden in 2020? Sounds like the party elite might've won. I don't study this enough to say which critics are right.

 

Trump could run as an independent, there is nothing stopping him. Although his grip on the Republican Party right now is so strong that it would seem unnecessary. A strong third party can assure the victory of the other side too. The old election of 1912 wherein the Republicans were split between Bull Moose TR and Republican Taft got Democrat Wilson the White House. Much more recently, you could say even a small third party can be "dangerous", Jill Stein may have played a role in Clinton's demise in 2016.

Edited by Interdimensional Observer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could see Trump threaten to run as an independent candidate in case the Reps don't nominate him, seeing how it would hurt the elephants way more than the donkeys. It's not like he gives a shit about the party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ping said:

I could see Trump threaten to run as an independent candidate in case the Reps don't nominate him, seeing how it would hurt the elephants way more than the donkeys. It's not like he gives a shit about the party.

i hope he does this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty sure they would just re-nominate them. Fascists are good at falling in line, at the end of the day, like they have been throughout their attempt to literally overturn democracy this past month.

They're just not having any success in court because there really, really isn't any significant voter fraud and they can't manufacture it themselves just by wishing it into existence.

Edited by Crysta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Texas Supreme Court lawsuit to throw out the popular vote of 4 states and allow their legislatures (Republican controlled) to select electors (Trump) instead is the most offensive lawsuit yet.  It has been signed on by 17 states and 106 US Congresspeople (I think all from the House).  It apparently has no chance, but it is incredibly appalling, and again I ask where are the consequences?  Political or otherwise?  Will moderate voters who don't identify with every party be disgusted and not vote for these Confederates next time they come up for election?  Well Dems have to note the names, and harp on them constantly about this when that election time comes.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

I thought most political scientists agree that a parliamentary system is better, even the American scholars in the field. More "checks" in the American system, but it's more legislatively constipated too (which is sad when it's the good stuff that doesn't get done).

As a rather unserious thought, I wonder if Trump would prefer a parliamentary system. Sure, he'd no longer have as many of the rituals of state due to a figurehead of some kind for that role, but isn't there usually a shadow government in parliament whose potential PM come the next election can harangue the actual PM on a daily basis? Trump loves stealing attention, him at one of those UK "Prime Minister's Questions" sessions sounds like an idea a political cartoonist could have some fun with.

Well if we just port the current US system over to a parliamentary system then Trump wouldn't ever have become prime minister as it would have fallen more in line with the popular vote. Of course the whole idea of it being parliamentary is to end up with a wider selection of opinions and parties. But I'm not sure how many moderate parties could be carved out of the republican and democrat system, everything seems so extreme. At least looking from the outside. You'd probably have an NRA and Everyone Love Jesus Party who only staunch republicans vote for while having a BLM and new Socialist party for the democrats. I guess the hope here would be parties dedicated to things like taxation and government control would be get the lion's share of the votes as most people are more moderate and those are more moderate concerns that make people vote one way or another (with the more extremist stuff being tacked on because it's a two party system). But all those former republican parties and former democratic parties could just band together to form a government. The US political culture doesn't seem, well moderate enough for anything else to happen after decades of increasing partasanism. My biggest hope is that a proper and dedicated Green Party could become more popular. Also it could see the end of the death penalty in a lot of states as a party invested in reducing government power would have no reason to support the government having the authority to kill its citizens. Sanctuary Cities, a more democratic leaning principle could also shifted to a more bipartisan issue as underneath the whole immigration thing, the main thing that's happening there is states resisting the authority of the federal government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/9/2020 at 5:17 AM, Jotari said:

And I'd add this to the IDK pile with raven.

On 12/4/2020 at 9:33 PM, Eltosian Kadath said:

I would try to convince the agent to come forward with the evidence. It wouldn't be right to take the credit, or the consequences of that evidence.

 

I think that is a bit of a misrepresentation of what I was saying. I want that information to get out, but I could not be the source of that information, and still be the person that I am. If I were to bring it forth myself, I would be both spreading hear-say about it, and inevitably tainting it based on how I presented it. People would need to get that information from the true source, to properly assess the reliability, and credibility of it on their own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/9/2020 at 2:40 PM, Dr. Tarrasque said:

If the Democrats want to stop that shit, they need to be better at building a narrative that speaks to people by class rather than race as well as starve Republicans of political ammunition and let them sink in their stupid civil war over the election and always demonstrate when it is the Republicans destroying and assistance to regular people.

Trump being removed from office and even if he gets jailed doesn't solve anything, it's just a reprieve from that stupid clown.

I'll argue that there is some good out of Trump being jailed - it's a stiff reminder that illegal actions will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.  If the extreme left wants to take the same tactics, then they can join Trump in jail.  I, for one, would much rather have a government that's beholden to both the people and the laws of the land.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/9/2020 at 7:40 PM, Dr. Tarrasque said:

If the Democrats want to stop that shit, they need to be better at building a narrative that speaks to people by class rather than race as well as starve Republicans of political ammunition and let them sink in their stupid civil war over the election and always demonstrate when it is the Republicans destroying and assistance to regular people.

Trump being removed from office and even if he gets jailed doesn't solve anything, it's just a reprieve from that stupid clown.

To starve republicans of ammunition at this point is to merely not speak. And even then, they can stir shit out of thin air. DEFUND THE POLICE is a shit slogan, but that was made by progressives. At this point, the Democrats just need to ram in whatever they can and hope Joe Manchin or Susan Collins votes with them, while they try to win Georgia.

Messaging/slogans are a problem, but considering how there's propaganda out there simultaneously saying Biden is basically a Republican and how Biden is a socialist (both of which he scoffs at), at some point I wonder if it's not messaging that's the problem but the people and the media.

Part of the issue is that if you listen to a 30 minute talk about policy from someone, the only way it will get aired en masse in any fashion is if you spend 1 minute shitting on Trump. I know I've literally had to debate people on policy positions stated by the Biden admin itself and in various speeches; you even saw in the debates and in town halls that he was talking about clear policy! There was a lot of clear messaging! Hell, the campaign even out and out rebuked the tagline DEFUND THE POLICE. But if you're a Fox News watcher, you still get lies about how Biden is a socialist who wants to eliminate the police. Even though Biden is wholly against defunding or eliminating!

At this point all we can do is get out of this pandemic and do a shitload of campaigning for local politics and national politics by extension as well. Like, holy fuck are people stupid. In any other country, Trump wouldn't get 25% more votes for 250k dead Americans. At this point, if Georgia doesn't work out, all focus has to be towards elections. There's nothing that can be done outside of the executive going to the very edge of the power it has -- something that is limited in a hostile Senate.

Although, *yeah*, there's things out there that they need to change the debate on. Court packing? No. Court rebalancing. They actually tried to deflect court packing by accusing the Republicans of court packing -- which is literally what the Republicans have been doing -- but that's still not what gets aired.

 

 

Regardless, Trump being jailed implies the restoration of the rule of law to some extent. It's not the endpoint, but it shows actions aligning with what amounts to oversight and justice. You can think of it as part of creating a presence of justice.

Edited by Lord Raven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...