Lord Raven
-
Posts
9,206 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Lord Raven
-
-
6 hours ago, Dai said:
The man actually went and said something so ludicrous that even Twitter had enough and decided to apply a label to his tweet leading to actual information about mail-in ballots and absentee voting.
Naturally, his response once he found out was to claim that Twitter was not only violating freedom of speech, but interfering with the presidential election.
It never stops with this guy, honestly.He also targets Michigan and doesn't give a fuck about any of the red States doing it
-
On 5/20/2020 at 12:37 AM, Acacia Sgt said:
No no, by original I mean the 0079 original, not TV Wing. Which I assumed that's what Rapier also meant by original.
Yes. I calculated it and, while they condense the original into three movies, its ~23 episodes length since each movie is around 2.5 hours long. It also fixes the shitty animation from 0079.
Zeta movies are like ~12 episodes length, and they cut out the entire Dakar arc and everything. The Zeta movies were really bad imo
On 5/20/2020 at 10:14 AM, Karimlan said:The lack of G Gundam in this discussion is astounding. But I do hold the opinion that Zechs was better at being Char than Char himself.
what
-
19 hours ago, XRay said:
Trump is a fucking jerk for trying to withhold funds just because some states want vote by mail, especially with COVID-19 around. If Michigan wants to vote by mail, they can vote by mail. I am pretty sure the federal government cannot dictate how people vote.
that pussy deleted the tweet LOL
This was a response to said tweet -- you can see the tweet is now deleted. Trump's such a fucking idiot. I wish the media stopped calling him racist and the like and just called him a fucking idiot.
-
btw the atlantic is one of the greatest outlets i've read, because they seem to cut out the bullshit and go into deep dives and analyses. It feels somewhere between journalism and research, or rather disseminating research to the public.
12 hours ago, eclipse said:It feels like Trump's base is relatively small, given the amount of bitching that's done about him. I wonder how the other charismatic despots fared in their time?
Hitler won a plurality of the votes in the 30s. He was not the majority winner.
-
3 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:
So McConnell proposes a power grab to expand the Patriot Act of all things and then an amendment is suggested to EXCLUDE Internet Browsing History from the scope of this power grab and it doesn't get enough votes to pass lol. All those assholes that voted NAY to this deserve so much shit. Collins must really be banking on McConnell to save her seat to make such a vote given her current situation.
thats because moscow mitch held the vote while two senators who'd vote for it to pass were not present
because moscow mitch is as big a cunt as trump
-
Yeah, I would say Glennstavos is thinking more 4-8 years down the line when we have more than one viable party.
I don't see Republicans as a viable party for the conservation of democracy.
-
23 minutes ago, Glennstavos said:
Turnout was less than 2008, but not 2012.
I might be referring to key swing states, then, and might be more specifically referring to lower turnout in Democrats and higher turnout in Republicans.
-
1 hour ago, Tryhard said:
I do have to wonder if Trump does win re-election, if you will blame the voters.
Depends on how many stay home. Voter turnout was down in 2016 compared to 2012 and 2008. People didn't show up since they were taking it for granted. I mean, again, Michigan went to Trump after being a very solidly blue state. At least PA was a more bluish purple for the last like 20 years, Michigan was like routinely +5-10 points blue. since Bill Clinton won.
This time? Who knows. It depends on the state, what means they're implementing to ensure people can vote, etc. Ultimately, it might be the Trump admin to blame.
1 hour ago, Tryhard said:Dr Ford also had almost the same story to tell, including the fact that she told others at the time. If you remain skeptical I wouldn't mind as long as you didn't also jump to conclusions in that case. (This is ignoring the fact that Kavanaugh was unfit to be in his position outside of that)
The means through which Ford reported her case was that when Kavanaugh was on a shortlist -- ages before his actual hearing -- she brought it up in private. She was outed during the hearings, testified under oath, and the FBI didn't do a single investigation and Congress just jammed him through.
Although, if I'm being honest? That alone should not be disqualifying, even if it were true (there's enough doubt), partially because he was like 17 in a good ol' boys private school right outside of DC in the early 80s. It doesn't excuse the actions of teenagers, but teenagers are fucking stupid and in all honesty if you learn from the stupid shit you said and did as a teenager that's better than... anything Kavanaugh did during that hearing.
His response was disqualifying, however, since it was blatantly partisan, flippant, and blamed on conspiracy. Kavanaugh was a trainwreck of a candidate and it has absolutely nothing to do with the allegations.
-
2 hours ago, Glennstavos said:
What hate mobs on the internet often fail to understand about "listening to women" is that it entails listening to women. But since the alleged offender of this case is somebody they don't like, they're more than ready to weaponize the situation without learning the woman's name. I have no stance on whether the allegations are true or false because there has been no criminal investigation. If Biden has an opportunity to prove his innocence, like with a DNA sample, I think he should take it, even if it would realistically change nothing about his reputation, it would at least restore some faith within his own camp. When it comes to the Biden situation, what confounds me most is that VPs undergo intense vetting. Obama's team would not have overlooked something so potentially severe from all those interviews. Certainly not as a favor to Biden - Obama didn't even like the guy in 2008.
This 100%.
I don't want to dive deeper in to it than you do -- it's a huge rabbithole that involves all the worst parts of sexual assault denial (and I'm trying to strip politics heavily OUT of her sexual assault allegation, as relevant as they may or may not be) -- but Biden is legitimately offering to her every possible source of evidence that she may look for. He actually requested a look through the senate records* and he was denied because it was a "faux attempt at transparency" (their words paraphrased, not mine).
My only issue with timing, by the way, is the fact that she tweeted "wait for it tick tock tick tock" like a month before she released the allegations. That makes me ridiculously suspicious. Everything else about the timing can be explained by trauma, aside from that aspect, which just throws enough of a wrench into things that in the end it just becomes legitimately impossible to verify one way or another.
*by the way the Delaware records are a true red herring and trying to open Biden up for fishing, they will contain nothing about the accusation in it
-
15 minutes ago, Tryhard said:
You could say that it's irresponsible for them to be concerned with that when there are people who suffer at the end of policy at no choice of their own, but it's hard for me to tell them that they're wrong and instead of voting for Trump, who they already know is extremely dubious when it comes to sexual conduct, they should vote for Biden instead, who they are personally disgusted by as well.
Probably because it is. I don't even see how hard it is to argue; people will vote for Trump regardless of accusations even worse than this, people are refusing to vote for Biden because... he gets up in your grill.
It's really vanity in the end. A non-vote is a vote for Trump seeing as Trump has the more united electorate.
People expect perfection from a candidate to convince them to vote for said candidate. It's vanity. If they didn't participate in the primaries, then they didn't attempt to get their voices heard in the first place. If they participated in the primaries and their candidate lost, then it's clear that there are concessions to be made. The guy doesn't assault people or even harass them. Some people just have a physical way of showing affection, and if him saying "I don't apologize for how I feel but I do apologize for getting into your personal space" isn't enough for them then I'm not sure what is.
Risking everything over something that many groups see as minor is ridiculous, I'm not quite sure where you're finding difficulty in telling them it's wrong. It sounds like a relatively fringe group that doesn't care about the big picture. Especially since not voting would ensure any pro-feminist legislation won't see the full light of day in our lifetime, given the Supreme Court's extremely fragile state right now.
-
1 hour ago, Excellen Browning said:
And a potential child rapist, considering the friendship with Epstein.
Well, I'm not going to go too hard into that, but pussygrabber was his name in this context, not like... a label. I'm trying to find multiple ways to find names to describe Trump as the revolting little mushroom penis person that he is.
I realized that calling him a cunt may not be the best thing cuz I actually like pussy, but the Stormy Daniels interview taught us a lot about him, more than I wish I knew but alas. Makes him an easier target.
-
8 hours ago, Tryhard said:
I thought the Republican party should have been unviable for a long time after Dubya Bush, and yet that didn't really happen. I don't remember Bush being so liked in 2004, and yet he still was re-elected against an uninspiring John Kerry.
Bush's fuckups weren't nuanced enough. I was in high school in a hicktown (I'm not going into the nuances of this) who thought that Bush found WMDs and that the Iraq war was justified. There's people who conflate Iraq and 911.
Botching COVID19 and having well over 10k-15k times as many deaths -- and counting -- and we're gonna hit a point where you're only 2 degrees away from a covid death.
8 hours ago, Tryhard said:Their choice is essentially two old men who have been accused of sexual assault, and even if you are skeptical of the accusation (I am), there's no denying that Biden really has no concept of personal space from the public videos there are of him. And can I really argue against this refusal to support Biden for this reason? No, not really.
Although the ironic thing is this
Are you talking to white women, perchance? I find it hard not to bring this up -- I actually firmly believe one reason Biden is so well positioned with minorities is because of that. I think that's entirely some sort of cultural understanding that people don't really understand, on top of the generational thing. It's something I'll not so much defend as say "well, this is why he did it, this is what it reminds me of, personal space issues seem to be a white person thing, and he's made it a point to stop in the face of criticism for it." Which is why, in the end... it's not that it's defensible so much as not really a point against him, especially when your other choice is pussygrabber.
-
3 hours ago, eclipse said:
I think Biden isn't going to change much due to a stubborn Congress, but IMO he's vastly preferable to Trump, who will actively make things worse.
The primary reason I'm hammering the point so hard -- not just in our conversation right now, but in general everywhere I am -- is because the president isn't about creating policy. It's about all the administrative things that involve the distribution of resources, making sure our courts are functional, making sure our agencies are functional, and everything to that effect.
I think Congress will be better off once people follow this:
3 hours ago, eclipse said:Which reminds me, voting Congress should be argued as heavily as voting for the president. The lack of progress is partially the fault of a red Congress. I'm going to keep to the Democratic nominee for mine, just because of that.
💯💯💯💯💯
Cannot second this enough. I hope a blue congress doesn't gerrymander, either. Republicans deserve the opportunity to move left with the times. We need Trump and the Republicans out for 2020 and 2022, but we need an opposition party at all times no matter what, and the opposition party can't be wholly ideologically polarized and opposed like right now.
I don't even think it's a left vs right thing. I think it's entirely a "we all have a civic duty to make sure one choice and the other choice aren't polar opposites, so Republicans stop undoing and placing blame while Democrats pick up the pieces."
Although personally, I wouldn't be opposed to eliminating the republican party and splitting up the Democratic party. I sincerely do not believe that, due to the handling of COVID, the Republicans will be able to survive in their current form. There's 5-6 months left before the election and... plenty can still happen, but also my friend put it well.
The defeatist takes just set us up for 5-6 months of disappointment and re-affirming our own narratives. One thing we need to keep in mind is that Texas is right now purple... 5-6 months out.
-
That's fair.
I still think there is lots and lots of merit in voting blue in a blue state -- it still means that the candidate will make the necessary concessions to take the state, which if you want that, then an affirmative vote is good for precisely that.
It's a common argument by some progressive factions that believe that it's pointless to vote for Biden despite him making some concessions (and there's 5-6 months more concessions for him to make) as a "protest vote." Because the logic is poor; they won't try to court people who won't show up, especially if they didn't show up for their candidate of choice in the primary.
In either case, I think the points I made were fairly clear about why voting third party in protest is suboptimal regardless of your own personal choice and your state situation. We're allowed to discuss this and you don't need to take it personally. In the end I was discussing a general idea and you were discussing your own personal choice. It's, ultimately, two wildly different points we are making.
That still doesn't mean that I'm telling you to vote a certain way. We didn't need to spend a page going over this.
-
What point are you making here? You sound like you're just responding without saying anything.
In the last page you've added literally nothing to this discussion other than "I know Hawaii more than you." Okay? Congratulations on not educating me on anything.
-
2 hours ago, eclipse said:
I DO mind that you're doing so in this manner - namely, out of what you think it should be, never mind the other person.
You're doing the same thing back. My point is that everyone should vote affirmatively in this election. Your point is "what about Hawaii it doesn't matter." My point is "what about Michigan." Your point is "I know Hawaii better than you lol trust me it's a deep blue state." My response is "I live in a deep blue state, I'm still voting affirmatively, just cuz you know Hawaii better than me doesn't mean some bullshit can't happen, considering Michigan was blue as fuck and the Democrats lost it to Trump."
That's the discussion. You're just telling me to shut up and not lecture you on Hawaii, when you're the one who inserted it into the conversation in the first place. What is the point you are making?
2 hours ago, eclipse said:And as for diversity? To truly understand that, you'd need to try to live here. . .which I wouldn't recommend, given the current state of the economy. There's a reason why some people are really unhappy here, while others take to it like a duck to water.
How about you describe it yourself? If you don't want to put in the effort, then don't tell me what I can and can't say about Hawaii's demographics. Otherwise, I'm not taking your word for it just because you know and I don't.
"To truly understand it, you'd need to live here" -- that's not true at all, you can describe it instead of this vagueness. You only brought up you're in a deep blue state -- how the hell am I supposed to relate beyond the fact that I'm from a deep blue state? I've even lived in wildly different demographics to Maryland (currently sorta kinda but not really living in Ohio, have lived long-term in Illinois and Arizona).
You say "a lot of people voted affirmatively in 2016/2018" and I say "a lot of people did not in other heavy blue states, so why still vote third party in this election when everything's on the line?"
"There's a reason why some people..." -- then state it, otherwise we'll go in circles and you'll just be policing without adding anything. I'm not doing research for a point you're making, if you're not going to properly offer a perspective then you add absolutely nothing but indifference. My point in the end is this is not the election to make a point other than a complete and total repudiation of Trump, who is actively trying to suppress votes, make up some #OBAMAGATE bullshit and who is trying to delegitimize any election result that occurs. Every state functions differently, but let's be real that anything can flip based on the fact that this virus is probably being allowed to spread as it does because it disproportionately targets groups that don't vote for Trump -- minorities and poor people.
As I will continue to say, this is not the election to take for granted.
-
5 hours ago, eclipse said:
Do you honestly think that 30% of Hawaii is going to decide to follow my logic? Because that's literally what it would take for a shift from Democrat.
I know my demographic far better than you, on the basis of living here. Notice how I'm NOT telling you how to vote? That's because I don't know Maryland's culture or political climate, nor will I pretend to. I strongly suggest not doing the same to anyone else. I'll apologize if Hawaii's anything but blue, but I doubt I'm going to have to do this. I'm still going to vote, as much as the second wave will let me.
If it makes you feel better, the conservative base is also worried. But I think they have a good reason for it.
Notice how I'm not specifically telling you how to vote? Notice how I'm mostly talking in generalities? Notice how I'm commenting based on information given to me? Notice how I'm commenting on previous things that have happened? Am I not allowed to comment on a situation that's similar to mine, just because I don't live there? Are you shutting down any comment on Hawaii because you know more than me about where you live? I think, if it's the last sentence, that is the antithesis of this forum, based on the guidelines here.
I'm not telling you specifically to do shit. I'm talking about why I think it's pointless to vote third party, even in a deep blue or red state. In the end, I don't actually care what you, the user Eclipse, does. If you vote third party and the Republicans win Hawaii? Then we can all talk about retrospect like we did with Clinton & Michigan. Routinely had Democratic blowouts since 1992, and went to Trump by half a percent.
The arguments you're putting forth are reasons why you may feel too apathetic to vote. Like I've said in a previous thread -- and I'll gladly dig it up, because nothing has changed in years (hint: it was about net neutrality and I was talking about grassroots political organization, if you want to dig it up yourself) -- I'm not telling you, the user Eclipse, specifically, to do anything.
I'm here to talk about how I think the rhetoric behind voting third party or for not one of the two major parties in our current system is more dangerous than the rhetoric behind voting for one of the two major parties. Especially since, in our case, the united voting bloc will accept anything with an R, and the non-united voting bloc won't. Maybe these people should participate in a primary if they don't think their voices are being heard, considering the primary is supposed to take the moderate candidate of the bunch. If you're throwing Hawaii at me and saying "but don't comment on Hawaii because I know way more than you," then you really didn't seem to care about the point at all.
If you want to take for granted the blue vote, by all means, I'd say it's no skin off my back but I would be lying because this is not the election to make a point about how broken the voting system is. Because currently, everything is broken around us, and many, many people on this forum have had people die or get infected by COVID, have lost employment due to COVID, and the president refuses to do anything because he's clearly targeting demographics who wouldn't vote for him (poor, minorities, city people, blue state people, etc).
But my point right now is that it's dangerous to assume that oh I live in a deep blue state my vote doesn't count and then not vote. You seem to be encouraging this mentality, and I completely disagree with that rhetoric. I should be able to make this point without you saying
QuoteI know my demographic far better than you, on the basis of living here. Notice how I'm NOT telling you how to vote? That's because I don't know Maryland's culture or political climate, nor will I pretend to. I strongly suggest not doing the same to anyone else.
Which comes off as an appeal to authority type of fallacy, and not... anything relevant to the point I'm making. It's twisting and turning what I'm saying to shutting it down. Please stop doing that. If you can see the future and predict the way the election is going to go, share the information with us. Otherwise, don't pretend I'm some crazy person shooting off some rhetoric to actually vote regardless of your circumstance if you're able to.
I live in a state that has just as big a chance as going red as Hawaii does. Since we have probably tons more black people, here's my appeal to authority from the border state -- the (older) black community knows far, far, far better than us the importance of voting and not taking elections for granted, and I would advise you listen to them over me, seeing as there are many of them in Maryland. Probably even more than Hawaii, given they're the most proportionally fucked over class of people in the country. They've managed to swing elections and there is much more on the line overall for them than there probably ever will be for us. Are we still doing appeals to people who know better here, or is this paragraph a bunch of bullshit?
I'm not here to win arguments or have a good time. I just completely and utterly disagree with your rhetoric and I'm vocalizing it. You living in Hawaii and me living in Maryland has absolutely nothing to do with it, it just means that I can't sympathize despite being in a similar voting situation. We're probably way more diverse, too, given we're full of a ton of international ancestry rather than a bunch of AAPI.
-
1 hour ago, eclipse said:
So explain how a third-party vote hinders a state that is almost certainly going to go Democrat? You can be scared that my state will flip. I'm positive that it won't.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_elections_in_Michigan
Michigan was almost certainly gonna go Democrat. It happens. Best not to ensure it won't happen.
Voting third party won't send the message. In fact, last time a third party did get a significant fraction of votes, they basically stopped allowing them into debates. You surely know of Ross Perot, don't you?
As for why I have to explain it to you more -- I did, I advise you read my points again. But to summarize, anything can happen and they're actively trying to oppress votes federally. You are aware people followed similar logic for Brexit and it came to pass right?
-
35 minutes ago, eclipse said:
If that's your mentality, then you don't really realize what that "protest vote" means. It doesn't matter if your state has 50%+1 votes for candidate X or 90%, their electoral votes should go to candidate X. That's why dogpiling after a certain point is a waste of a vote, while what looks like a protest vote isn't. It's a reminder that there SHOULD be more options, so this kind of debacle doesn't happen again.
Not the right time to make a protest vote. That's the point I'm getting at.
Four years ago, sure (even then, not really). 8 years ago? Most definitely alright! Right now? No, because no matter what third party votes help the more unified party (which the Democrats, in any given state, will never be) and the party that has more to gain from a non-vote. The party that is currently sitting on their hands about aid (the other one is actively not) as well as enabling the president to continue to sit on his hands.
It basically also means that parties will continue to encourage the use of voter suppression tactics to make these things... less possible as time goes on.
-
17 hours ago, eclipse said:
I don't think you fully grasp the situation in Hawaii. As long as the really racist/conservative population is behind Trump, I doubt we're moving from Biden. Trump is loud, arrogant, and white - the "loud" and "arrogant" reinforce a negative stereotype. Given how Hawaii handled the pandemic so far, I think the number of people that approve of Trump's methods are extremely low.
Check the polling numbers from the 2016 election, and tell me which state had the highest percentage of people voting Democrat.
I'm vote in Maryland. Your situation is extremely similar to mine, given I vote in one of the few states gerrymandered towards the Democrats. Our Republican Governor is a classical liberal who shits on Trump every chance he gets, to the applause of our citizenry. My parents' county, which again I vote in, had 310k voters and 10m of them went towards Trump and a staggering 295m went towards Clinton.
This doesn't mean I'm going to put in a meaningless third party protest vote during what is perhaps the most important election of our lifetime to date. This isn't just a referendum, this is saving our country from crooks who are letting a disease spread with zero aid to the citizens so they can win a fuckin election and allow their cuntish cronies to continue to prosper. The evil of Trump is above and beyond anything you can imagine.
Third party protest votes seem to come from people who refused to participate in any primary.
2 hours ago, Lewyn said:Well he is comedy gold for other comedians. If he wasn't so cartoonish and childish we wouldn't even get the joy of laughing at him.
I think history will not only frown on Trump but show him as a representative of a large ugly underbelly of America rooted in bigotry, greed, selfishness, and ignorance of science.
He is not comedy gold for other comedians anymore. The jokes are repetitive as fuck, and it's hard to satirize someone who's so blatantly corrupt.
History will mercilessly destroy the Republican Party of the last 15 years. They will destroy the Tea Party movement. They will destroy George Wallace and Trump. The exact same as we treat the kings of old and fascists like Mussolini. There is nothing about the last four years -- arguably, 8 years -- that have been normal or okay. There is no ideology in our executive branch, and there never has been one for the entire four years. It's just people willing to let their opponents die so they can profit off of it as much as they can, and enablers who feel the same way.
2 hours ago, Glennstavos said:The low effort answer to "why don't we ditch the electoral college?" was always "Because it would be an election between two celebrities". Well the reality tv host did win despite the electors supposedly having been charged to prevent that, so I guess that line of thinking was bunk after all. Leaving up your presidential election to a few hundred unknown "guys who know best" just doesn't protect us against anything.
The electoral college is a load of bullshit that doesn't represent the modern day anymore. I was browsing the 1860 election and Lincoln got a plurality of the popular vote but a majority of the electoral college, so back then I could see its merits, and back when the state legislatures submitted the electoral votes I could see its merits... In the modern day, it is functionally useless because the presidency is a representative of the American people. If people want to prevent popular states from getting too powerful, they have proportional representation in the house and they have control of 2% of an entire chamber of congress with zero population proportion.
The popular vote just shifts the power from swing states to city centers.
-
4 hours ago, Lewyn said:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/weve-got-some-early-trump-vs-biden-swing-state-polling/
Really the only thing that matters is these purple states. It doesn't matter if blue states win by a larger majority, or red states are closer than previously. Anyways this polls show how fragile Biden's lead is and how easily it can swing back to electoral advantage for Trump.
Then you got what RNC/Trump are trying to do in the pandemic making it much harder to vote. More people voting favors Democrats of course. Voter fraud? Most that has been found has been done by Republicans.
This election is going to be close and ugly. The backlash will be very ugly and likely violent. This is what happens with a person like Trump in power.
Didn't you just demonstrate your own argument for why everyone should vote, regardless of whether or not they're in purple/red/blue states?
I brought up Michigan last election, a safe blue state not unlike Washington state. That's all the more reason to vote affirmatively, not vote for a third party.
If you can vote, you don't vote third party this election. Simply because of what I just bolded.
-
16 hours ago, eclipse said:
Two things wrong with this:
1. Certain places were going to go to a certain candidate, full stop. I lived in one of those places, hence why I went third-party.
2. I think what will prevent people from voting is the questionable state of mail-in ballots in places which are heavily red. It's like that for a reason. It will also depend on people being healthy enough to vote.1. I think McConnell has a chance of losing Kentucky if things go as they currently are. Just because it has a chance of going a certain candidate full-stop doesn't mean it will.
Michigan and Pennsylvania were two such states last election. People stayed at home. They flipped. Michigan was historically an extremely strong democratic stronghold since 1992, and Democrats routinely won by 10-15 points. But it went Trump. People stayed home or voted third party. Right now Texas is very purple, when it's been historically red. Doug Jones won Alabama over Roy Moore, despite a united front on the Republican side. Full stop is exaggerated, especially given your point #2.
I'm also saying this is not the election to take for granted. As we speak Trump is trying to pardon his cronies without taking the brunt of the blame.
2. Yes. That's an extra reason why everyone who is capable needs to vote against the Republicans, because we don't know who will be able to vote and who will be able to send mail in. If you're capable of voting, you have to carry the load.
EDIT:
If you can vote and you disapprove of the way Trump is handling covid, then the only choice is to vote for Biden. There's nothing you can take for granted in this election.
-
3 hours ago, Lewyn said:
Trump definitely won't get blown out. Remember that Fox and the rest of the massive right wing machine won't ever ever turn on him.
I posted evidence that they had, recently. Now that places like Ohio are opening up, and places like NYC are getting better (but much of the rest of the country is getting worse)... we're gonna see more. Poorer people can't pay their rent because of the lack of relief, for one thing.
Besides, part of it is not the GOP death cult they're attempting to cultivate. Part of the reason Clinton lost was because... people didn't fucking vote. People decided to vote for anti-vaxx Jill Stein or Gary "Aleppo?" Johnson because, well, they didn't want to soil their precious clean hands with voting for Clinton over Trump! And a bunch of good that did us. That, alone, will allow for blowouts -- people showing up to actually fucking vote! People in spite of clear danger in Wisconsin and massively for a Democrat, and the Dems have the house (and might win even more seats!). It's not at all out of the realm of possibility.
I have my doubts people will take this election for granted. GOP death cult propaganda doesn't work on moderates or people who no longer care about making a point. There's still some obstinate Bernie-or-busters out there trying to shit in the well.
-
1 hour ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:
I would certainly hope for a blue wave and the likes of Mitch McConnell to lose their power but you appear to be neglecting how much Trumpists have already turned a blind eye to what Trump has been doing and the Right-wing media and personalities constantly hiding his cronyism only perpetuates that problem.
Don't worry -- I'm fully aware.
Other people will be too, when the curve isn't flat. Because it's not anywhere close to flat.
1 hour ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:You should though. Partisan polarization makes you stupid and it only makes things worse when trying to reason with people. If you're caught up in an argument between a Democrat and a Republican that voted Trump, attacking the Democrat when they are actually wrong on something helps open up the other person to your reasoning.
When I say "Democrat" and "republican" I'm referring solely to politicians and not people. To me Democrats and Republicans are politicians, and added voter afterwards is people. That's how I've been operating the last few years, and it's fully consistent with what I've been saying.
General US Politics
in Serious Discussion
Posted · Edited by Lord Raven
I have a bit of a hot take that Jack Dorsey has some degree of conscience. Having that said, I'd figure this is a test run and somewhat of a more incremental measure that was halfassedly implemented.
I think at some point they need to cut that part out and possibly alter it to include a bunch of places to discuss the meaning of a hashtag or something. I'm just shitting out ideas, though.
I'd say also that they should add some degree of freedom to monitor federal politician and the state Governor's tweets for fact checks or something. Or just allow tweets to be like 3000 characters long or some shit. Fuck 300 characters. Ain't nobody going on twitter to read longass tweets anyway.
Regardless, what an acid trip the last few days have been politically. I haven't even talked about it at my house but everyone knows and everyone is too in agreement to even have a discussion.
I also want to make the point that you can't literally sue the president of the united states for lying his ass off on twitter and causing harassment. This man is a grown up troll using grown up troll powers to test any air bud flaw in our institutions. I don't even think he's a bad faith actor, I just think he's literally all of us if we had an ego but were a billionaire from birth.
I think it's like if you just coast off of being a billionaire for your entire life... except the version of you that gets mad during an internet argument, without any of the education, who is given a billion dollars. That's who Trump actually is, and because this shit will in no way affect him he can make some dumb ass statements, do some dumb ass shit, and then just go back to being president because he can literally do whatever the actual fuck he wants with no repercussions. Now, he has to go through a bunch of avenues for, say, launch codes. But he can say shit on twitter to spite people you don't like who talk shit to you. I dunno, I think these Hitler takes are dumb because Hitler actually had an agenda. I view it as mitigating damage from... the president of the united states, to some extent. It's a reactionary way to react to a reactionary, and once Trump is out we really do need to take a really hard look in the mirror because currently the Republican party are in serious trouble...