¡Damned!
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Purgatory
|
Year Two, people. The leader of the American Republican Party is, by all accounts, a nice guy and why would we question that.
Also, does anyone know how to properly scrub cast iron? My fucki,,, you know, I don't even want to say. An egg thing, basically. Anyways. Holy shit. Papadopoulos. So it goes. Last edited by 709 : 2017-10-30 at 18:09. |
quote |
¡Damned!
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Purgatory
|
Take a few seconds to ponder sentences two and three.
Also, Manafort & Gates. Nothing to see here, obviously. Fox State News says cheese, and its placement on a burger, is the true threat to Americans. Kinda agree, tbh. So it goes. Last edited by 709 : 2017-10-30 at 18:29. |
quote |
¡Damned!
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Purgatory
|
|
quote |
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: UK's most densely packed city. It's not London...
|
Well if we’re talking cheese, there are a few architectural positions for it in a burger. You’ve got the classic on top of patty, the dystopian on bottom of patty, and the new age in the patty. Not sure it’s worth discussing though. Not enough value in grilling talk at this mournful and coldening time of year. Maybe the diversity hirer will bring the proverbial outside perspective on this whole thing and manage to bring this train wreck to its glorious end before more people die. Who am I kidding? I abandoned the US when the getting was good
|
quote |
I shot the sherrif.
|
I found it interesting that it sounds like Popadopolis was wearing a wire for the last few months. I think the bulk of the current administration neither knows nor cares about the difference between legal and illegal behavior. I would guess the bulk of them have never had to face 'regular' legal repercussions for their transgressions, but rather money paid their way out of consequences.
I don't think that is going to work this time through though. I also want to state clearly, I don't care which party members get caught up in this corruption probe. If you're corrupt, I want your ass nailed to the wall, regardless of which party you belong to. (also, wasn't Popadopolis Punky Brewster's last name?) Google is your frenemy. Caveat Emptor - Latin for tough titty I tend to interpret things in the way that's most hilarious to me |
quote |
Formerly “MumboJumbo”
Join Date: Dec 2009
|
There is a very strange vibe regarding all the reporting on Trump but also all the interactions with those going against Trump.
To put it bluntly, they just don't act like they are winning and it seems like even if they try to inflict some damage, they end up with much more damage themselves. I mean seriously. If you think you have the president on impeachable offensives regarding foreign enemies, why do you have to go and call his press secretary a fat soccer mom? Why do you have to have Baldwin as Trump on a toilet? I mean people have an intrinsic sense of what constitutes bullying behavior and I don't think anyone is buying the "we're bullying because he's a bully" routine. It rings about as true as Antifa punching anyone with a flag or a red hat declaring that their mere existence is proof of a rising Nazi power. Some of the strangeness has also been how the Democrats appear willing to cut off their own head to perhaps cut off Trump's arm or something along those lines in terms of trading blows. Trump was contacted by Russia...... really? What did they tell him? They told him the DNC was a corrupt and compromised shell organization that Clinton used to loot all the fundraising for state races and use for her campaign in addition to making sure the primary was defacto set up for her to run unopposed...... Wow.... go team.... blue? You have Donna "I gave Clinton the debate questions" Brazille talking about how she wanted to be all virtuous when taking over the DNC from Debbie Wasserman Schultz because Schultz was so corrupt and horrible. So let's suppose some are right and Trump is screwing up as much as someone can screw up. The alternative is..... Joe Biden? Bernie Sanders? Jerry Brown? What model of blue state awesomeness can we point to as alternative to the Trump or red state way? |
quote |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2004
|
Trump is president, not Clinton. Democratic Party failings, as interesting as they may be, are only being foisted on the public as a form of misdirection. They are irrelevant in the face of what a Republican President and Congress do or do not do with their respective mandates. They are equally irrelevant to the question of how those mandates were won, and whether laws were broken in their pursuit.
|
quote |
Formerly “MumboJumbo”
Join Date: Dec 2009
|
Quote:
Say what you will about Trump, he is a fighter. You're not going to claim he put a dog on a station wagon or cut a classmates hair or fired an employee so his spouse could die of cancer or any other claim from that election and not get a response from Trump. Also no one has been given a mandate. The Republicans don't have a super majority. Trump didn't even win the popular vote. Why would call that a mandate? Should they govern? Of course and that is a different question. As for broken laws, Trump would have to be impeached by a Republican Congress and Senate which I don't think would happen. As I noted it isn't a vacuum. The Democrats meanwhile are stuck on repeat. It is all identity politics, and pretty much nothing else. Shockingly it's pretty hard to govern on a platform of blatant racism as the Democrats are doing. Racism doesn't have a rhyme, reason or policy to it. It's even hard to engage in class warfare when you're declaring half the members of a class can't really be there because they are white. |
|
quote |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2004
|
What’s not true? Is Trump not president? Are republicans not in the majority in both congressional houses?
Trump won his election as did every sitting Congress person. Let’s not be pedantic. Everybody understands winning an election with a majority of congressional seats constitutes a mandate. Perhaps not a strong one, but in the land today it is the president and his party who are in the strongest position to pass bills and make laws, not their opponents. What the government does with that power is what’s interesting. How it got that power? Also interesting. The guy in charge has to answer the questions. The privilege and responsibility comes with the office. Last edited by Matsu : 2017-11-05 at 22:17. |
quote |
Formerly “MumboJumbo”
Join Date: Dec 2009
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Latino Victory Fund This ad is a prime example. America is made up of evil white guys driving around trying to run down and kill minorities in their pick up trucks. If you vote for Democrats, I guess you get an America where evil white guys aren't killing hundreds of minority children a day by running them down with their pick up trucks? There isn't a plan or a policy. There isn't even a hope or a dream. This is just pure political fantasy and I guess if you vote the way they suggest you get..... reality but a Democratic claim that reality became that way due to them. "Hey America you elected us and now....hate is gone. No more kids being run down by pick up trucks!" We elected Obama for eight years and now we have no more confederate memorials right? Oh wait, that distraction only became a concern after they were out of power and we needed to show how the whole country is the Klan. Andrew Sullivan wrote about it better than I can. Quote:
Gee I forgot we need voters. Trump didn't build his wall yet due to a dozen lawsuits. Can we have your vote now Mr and Mrs Deplorable, Bitter Clinger Klan Member Terrorist? Good luck with that. |
||||
quote |
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: UK's most densely packed city. It's not London...
|
Yes yes and libtards aren’t real Americans — Tea Party 2009-now
It seems running the culture war on the right isn’t effective either. No one gives two shits about the DNC and the nice thing about people not caring about Russia is when federal indictments are handed down people are shocked and it isn’t old news. If Trump scrubs off 5 million more votes, he might lose to Kerry. There are absurdities here of course, but with Trump still failing to deliver on anything big (his destruction of things behind the scenes will be felt for generations) I think laughing at the DNC is hardly a realistic tack to take |
quote |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: oaktown
|
Dems seem to have done pretty well last night. Like, "fuck Trump" well.
|
quote |
¡Damned!
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Purgatory
|
The real "fuck Trump" test is in December, with Roy Moore. If Dems win that one, well, that's a bingo. Last night might put some juice into the race too if Dems want to spend some money.
So it goes. |
quote |
Formerly “MumboJumbo”
Join Date: Dec 2009
|
Quote:
However I’d say this race went differently and it shows most of what I’ve been talking about. DailyMail The person she was running against was a certifiable cartoon bully. He basically was calling names, refused to debate and spent more time making her the issue rather than discuss....the issues. She on the other hand spent an appropriate amount of time on her gender identity but did not let it become the crux of the campaign. There is clearly an absence of.....smugness on her part as she refuses to even bad mouth her opponent who bullied her noting that she would be serving as his representative now and she doesn’t bad mouth her own constituents. That is a very refreshing change from labeling anyone with whom you’d disagree with as a -ist practicing an -ism. Especially in this case when it was actually happening. Her focus.....issues and delivering services and not just for folks historicallly underrepresented or who belong in various oppressed groups or victim classes. Instead the goal is deliver for all the people she represents. Her focus.... schools,jobs and traffic. From what I’ve read she would have easily gotten my vote. This is what Democrats need a lot more of in terms of policy and candidates. The need non-corrupt local people who live where they serve, want to bring services and help to all the people they represent and who are open to the best ideas regardless of the person bringing them forward. Good job Danica and I hope you rub off on some of your party leaders and maybe even on a few of the people in this forum. A little less smug, self-righteous indignation and a little more listening and service can go a long way towards earning votes and that is what she has proven. |
|
quote |
¡Damned!
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Purgatory
|
In Webster's, "Smug, self-righteous indignation" has a picture of Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee (and kin), Rick Santorum, Donald Trump Jr.... aw hell, so many many more. I was going to make a funny but then realized nobody would remember the setup after picturing all those holier-than-thou faces. Let's just say that "SSRI" is pretty much the Republican Party Platform at this point, since they have no policy to speak of.
So it goes. |
quote |
I shot the sherrif.
|
A few people I used to work with who were our GOP operatives were pretty disturbed by the Gov. races and their results. (at least the guys tasked with long term strategy)
They're worried about how those races ended up. Moore refusing to bow out is going to be very interesting though. Is the strategic advantage of his vote *now* worth the potential lost midterm seats for supporting a pedophile? Google is your frenemy. Caveat Emptor - Latin for tough titty I tend to interpret things in the way that's most hilarious to me |
quote |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: oaktown
|
So now we're seeing a pattern where Dems who are accused of sexual misconduct resign or are outsted, whereas Republicans don't care. I mean, it's a feature not a bug: the Republican base either doesn't care about assaulting or harassing women to have it bother them or they actually see it as a mark of strength. See also Roy Moore, whose teen attacking ways are apparently part and parcel of religous life in rural Alabama, and the Prez himself. More women have accused him of abuse (and of course we have him on tape bragging about same) than have accused Al Franken (and the tenor of Trump's abuse is way more serious) but Al steps down while Trump calls him names. We now know that there are literally no limits to Republican hypocrisy. They'll shoot you in the face and then have a fit if you bleed on their rug.
That which doesn't kill you weakens you slightly and makes you less able to cope until you're completely incapacitated |
quote |
ಠ_ರೃ
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Minnesota
|
Republicans at this point have entirely divorced themselves from reality. Roy Moore spokeswoman Janet Porter Anderson was interviewed by Anderson Cooper yesterday and claimed that the accusations against Moore were part of a massive conspiracy orchestrated by the media, the Democratic party, and (of course) George Soros.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/07/politi...ntv/index.html The Republican party has hit full on "up is down, down is up" territory. It's been bad for a while but the past couple years have truly gone off the rails. And there are still tons of people who will continue to vote for them every time because there is an "R" next to their name. Trump once said he could shoot someone in public and not lose votes, and I believe him. |
quote |
Formerly “MumboJumbo”
Join Date: Dec 2009
|
Quote:
Perhaps the Republican base cares and thinks the media and others should care as well. However they only seem to care during an election year and in the months of October or November depending upon the election date. Also maybe they would grant the media some credibility if... this wasn't one sided and hadn't been occurring for decades. I'm old enough to remember Bush and the "fake" Air Force memos and the drunk driving report dropped in November. I can remember Arnold Schwarzenegger have all manner of accusations levied against him in October of 2003, FIVE DAYS before the election. Do you remember Mitt Romney and his 47% comment? I do. I also remember it was recorded in May but magically couldn't be reported on until late September of that election year. All the Trump allegations.... October of 2016. The Moore allegations.... a month before the special election in November since the election is in December. Isn't it shocking how coincidental all the allegations and claims seem to be and how the timing of them magically seems to coincide with an election as well? Let's presume all the allegations against Moore are true just for the sake of argument. Who's fault is it that no one could seem to find out and publish about them for nearly 40 years and magically couldn't even seem to find and publish ANY information before the only choice was Moore or his Democratic opponent? It doesn't seem a little odd that if you give yourself a 40 year window no one in the Washington Post could gather enough information to publish a story in September or August instead of November? I guess they couldn't have their information help Strange win the primary and then easily win the senate seat right? I mean if you want to believe that the allegations are all true, that is your choice. It just seems really strange that Moore has run for office a half dozen times and NO ONE anywhere could seem to find or publish any information about it until November of this year a month before an election. This seems especially odd when half the stories try to portray this as common knowledge and the man has run for governor twice. Quote:
Most media "interviews" like this the Republican isn't even allowed to complete a sentence without being spoken over. Meanwhile you can see the Democratic interview and the opposite happens. Long answers and softball questions are the norm. People can see through this stuff. The bias also clearly hurts Democrats because they keep getting blindsided by the treatment. They end up asking "What Happened" when reality doesn't match the media bubble. It may make someone feel smug or superior when the "gotcha" moment happens but it doesn't improve lives or change votes. |
||
quote |
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: UK's most densely packed city. It's not London...
|
Maybe it was common knowledge, and maybe Moore will lose those areas where he was known to be a predator. In any event, he never succeeded in running for Governor so there's that... This refusal to examine data on its face without calling upon some bizarre extra-logical 'timing' question is a sign of a severe critical deficit. One can almost see the desire to reject suggestions of Moore's predatory behavior even when assuming it to be true causing all sorts of cognitive dissonance. Let's assume this is true, but 'wait, the timing'! What does it matter that we discover the fact he was a predator (that, really, Alabama voters discover the fact that the he was a predator) only in the month before the election? If you assume the claims are true, supporting his candidacy simply because the timing isn't convenient for him is illogical. Knowledge of events becoming common doesn't have to be timed for a politicians convenience.
Regardless, he will win, and nothing will change. Trump's value in spite of his initial dislike of Moore, is sufficiently high among Alabama republicans that they will even elected a pedophile into office. They will have to own up to that knowledge at some point. But no one thinks the states going to flip to the Dems in the election, even just temporarily. It's fucking alabama where a racist candidate calling for the good old slavery times to return is right at home, even if he liked underdeveloped girls when he was in his thirties... |
quote |
Formerly “MumboJumbo”
Join Date: Dec 2009
|
Quote:
Quote:
The timing aspect is to show, for those that are not in a pure partisan thinking state and still want to apply some critical thinking why the claims would be discounted ON TOP of being being completely unverified. By your reasoning anyone who has your name written in a Christmas card from 40 years ago and can make a claim is has verifiable proof that you are a pedophile. That is pointless to argue about because there's no rationality there. Here's a question for you...you call the timing extra-logical. What is logical about any other aspect of the claims against Moore? It is clear you believe them so support your claim. If you signed someone's yearbook is it proof they tried you tried to rape or assault them? If you complimented someone on their appearance is it proof you grabbed their genitalia? Is it logical, as you are doing to uncritically accept the claims of anyone 40 years after the fact for no other reason than they are a white woman pointing a finger? Quote:
Talk about extra-logical reasoning........ |
|||
quote |
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: UK's most densely packed city. It's not London...
|
You aren't following the bouncing ball. The evidence in the year book and other pieces is to refute the claim that he didn't know these women when they were girls. He did. Why would he lie? Why do you doubt a growing number of women with physical proof they knew him personally? Is it because he reflects who you are? Are there skeletons in your closet you are worried about? A cute young thing you complimented when you knew you shouldn't, perhaps? A single compliment doesn't reflect harassment, but many reflects a poor moral guidance and when they are directed at underaged girls a creeping awfulness.
Regardless, you failed your own test. You assumed he did these things and then defended him because of the timing. Any non-partisan would see that the assumption that he pursued these girls is enough to evoke a desire to see him punished and not given the keys to more power. But you, the apparent purveyor of all things non-partisan, merely dismiss your assumption in the next breathe. [My guess is you were awful at mathematical proofs.] The problem with this discussion is you cannot follow your own argumentation. You assumed the girls were reporting actual harassment and then found a way to reject their claims. This makes no sense. As for timing... Again, when was a race that Moore has been involved in attracted the attention of journalists with substantial experience and reporting abilities? {His reported behavior is so repugnant, that you are willing to defend him even when assuming the behavior is absolutely true revolts me. I think this may be the first time I have ever blocked you, Nick, but enjoy being silenced.} Last edited by Dr. Bobsky : 2017-12-09 at 08:11. |
quote |
Formerly “MumboJumbo”
Join Date: Dec 2009
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The two runs for governor certainly should have attracted reporting and investigation at a minimum but being removed from the bench twice for ignoring federal orders does attract considerable attention especially when the reasons involve same-sex marriage. Here is a Times link to the story that involved a battle between Moore and the SPLC. Of all these matters I remember the ten commandments making national news for a considerable period. I remember the second being news worthy but was part of a broader theme of reporting how courts, clerks, etc were dealing with the national decision. But really there's no story there right? A Supreme Court Chief Justice being suspended for failing to enforce a court order involving same-sex marriage oh and by the way.... everyone knows he likes little girls.... no one would send anyone down to examine the first and discover the second right? Not worth thinking about or pursuing or even questioning. If you had some real sense, you'd question the claims about why anyone was sent down to examine THIS race. The last time a Democrat was elected for this seat was 1990. The seat hasn't been competitive in decades. Last election Sessions ran UNOPPOSED and collected 99% of the vote. The real race for this seat was the primary between Strange who was appointed to replace Sessions and Moore. That race received PLENTY of media attention because Trump had endorsed Strange and Bannon, who had just been forced from the White House, had endorsed Moore. It was receiving plenty of media play because of this schism in the Republican Party and how it was going to play out. It was characterized as Trump's first first congressional defeat. Here is a Politico article discussing those points. So again the claim that the media wasn't sending anyone down there until AFTER the primary doesn't pass the smell test. There are plenty of stories about the Trump, Bannon, Strange, Moore angles and how they were going to play out. Moore winning was a case of the underdog beating what Trump and the party wanted. Democrats hadn't even broken 40% of the vote in decades for this seat. The primary was the story. Yet somehow.... no one can find or report on any of this until after that primary is finished. You know... when everyone should have gone home and watched Moore win 60-40% in a a worst case scenario. Yes that's sarcasm. Quote:
|
|||||||||
quote |
ಠ_ರೃ
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Minnesota
|
El Gallo just one thing, you seem to feel that "convenient timing" is proof positive that Moore is innocent. But you refuse to consider the evidence that he may not be innocent, which is also somewhat tenuous. You are holding the arguments on either side to completely different standards, and it reveals just how strongly partisan you are.
How often can you get irrefutable proof of anything? No, a yearbook signature doesn't = rape, giving compliments to a young woman is not illegal, and so on. They are merely small pieces of supporting evidence that appear to corroborate the stories put forth by his accusers. But it is not absolute proof of wrongdoing either, and it's likely we'll never have absolute proof of these accusations. But bobsky already brought up that argument and you merely ignored it so I don't expect you to ever understand what is being said. However, when confronted with equally circumstantial evidence on the opposite side - that the timing was convenient, you immediately jump to the conclusion that he must be innocent. For all your haughty talk of how incredibly non-partisan you are, it's pretty obvious you're much more willing to make a leap in one direction and not the other. |
quote |
Formerly “MumboJumbo”
Join Date: Dec 2009
|
Quote:
Also do you know if Doug Jones every signed a yearbook or how he treated the girl at the make up counter? You do know he wasn't married until he was 39 so obviously there was plenty of time to date. Has the media told us anything about Doug Jones beyond the fact that he isn't Roy Moore? The point is they are supposed to vet these folks for us. I'll tell you what. Just find me one article about Doug Jones and how he treated women when dating them. Can we even find an article on the family background of Doug Jones and how he dated and married his wife as a contrast to Moore? I mean clearly if we are very concerned about making sure we aren't putting sexual harassers, abusers or just creepers into office someone should have done an investigation on Jones. The reasoning in this thread that it didn't happen during the primary for Moore was the race just wasn't big enough and thus, it was magically discovered only after the primary. Well clearly they SHOULD have and WOULD have done it for both sides since they aren't partisan. Doug Jones didn't do anything wrong to anyone and all he did is respectfully date and marry his wife. That's great so where's that article for balance heck it would even help him. Where's the article where the women he dated noted he never treated them badly or disrespectfully? Does it exist? Has the media done their job and vetted both candidates? Quote:
Quote:
The reason most of this is even up for discussion is the partisan nature of the press. How can you not see that? How long did Doug Jones date his wife? How long were they engaged? Why can we know every girl or waitress Roy Moore ever spoke to but we don't even know basic information for Doug Jones? That my friend is partisan. Quote:
That is what reasonable people do and that is what the legal system does. The #metoo movement doesn't want that nor do partisans who want a senate seat for their team. Quote:
The most damning piece of evidence is there is no opposite side. I mean I'm sure there is but the media will sit on their hands. Just like how Drudge had to break Lewinsky scandal and how the National Enquirer had to tell us John Edwards was cheating on his cancer striken wife and had a love child on the way they know but they just don't care to deal with the opposite side because they ARE the opposite side. I'd argue the evidence for that is pretty strong. There have been media studies to prove that point. There are donation patterns. There is a clear preponderance of evidence like I've noted where they just won't drop the dirt on the Democrat and not only won't investigate but won't do their basic job of vetting them. However you can believe what you want. I prefer a world where the facts don't make me feel crazy. Here's some non-partisan info for you and it even brings it back around to Trump. We are in an everything bubble. There isn't a single sound area of the economy left in my opinion. My personal money is sitting on the sidelines. Car sales/loans, student loans, government bonds, stocks and housing prices are ALL in bubble territory. BRIC ROW is even worse. I suspect these bubbles SHOULD pop before 2020 but the fed might find ways to prop it up until after that election regardless of how "independent" they happen to be. So there is some real financial ugliness coming and Trump, MAGA, Republicans, and no one else can stop it from happening. Democrats won't have a real answer either and will make it worse but they'll likely get elected from the downturn. |
|||||
quote |
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: UK's most densely packed city. It's not London...
|
Luca, you last point is especially true when you consider the fact that Alabama's other sitting senator doesn't want anything to do with Moore. Now I wonder if he is being partisan here or finds it convenient to not support the GOP nominee for his state. I imagine not, but one wonders why a person with such strong reasons to back Moore could find the behavior he is reported to have conducted so vile, so convincingly real, that he just plain doesn't want anything to do with him. Couldn't be that people have ethics, no it cannot be that...
|
quote |
Posting Rules | Navigation |
|
Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Donald Duck was a What!?! | InactionMan | AppleOutsider | 11 | 2019-07-29 22:41 |
President 2.0 | Kraetos | AppleOutsider | 12 | 2009-01-21 16:38 |
Possible Republican presidential candidates for 2008 | Windswept | AppleOutsider | 271 | 2008-01-04 19:02 |
OMG! Donald Rumsfeld is a reincarnated Nazi! (or not, pix inside) | Luca | AppleOutsider | 10 | 2005-10-25 15:26 |
WTC: Finally some sense (from Trump of all people) | The Return of the 'nut | AppleOutsider | 50 | 2005-05-23 08:33 |