US 2020 Presidential Election

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm starting to think my fair state of Florida just isn't all that smart, with how they respond to covid, and now hosting this Orange monkey with all of it's vassals in attendance. Sigh!

I think all of this -- all of humanity's frailties and hostilities -- have been magnified by the existential threat of the virus. I hesitate to use that word, as I don't think it's so existential -- just another attempt by Mother Nature to balance her scales -- but it's having that kind of effect on people.

Things like the cancel culture and the coservatives' (I also hesitate to use that term for this fearful new breed on the right, as I don't think the traditional term applies.) version of the cancel culture, stifling political opinions and even the form of government they disagree with, are all signs of a low-grade, simmering panic, prompting people to turn on each other.

We're all just scared, chittering chimps, flinging our feces at each other, but we really ought to stop the thought-police bullshit on both sides.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 16, 2010
Messages
4,813
I really think putting the social conservatives under the same tent as the fiscal conservatives hurt both groups. We end up being saddled with the worst of both come election time- the dems happily trot out the whole anti-science trope and there's not much that can be done because a small but vocal portion of the people under the umbrella fit the meme. And who wants to vote for the adults in the room that pay attention to the deficit? Nobody wants to vote for the guy that doesn't dole out free money left and right.

I expect the left has similar problems since we can tie reasonable climate hawks to AOC's cow farts and legit social change can be linked to the rioters/looters. Potentially useful concepts easily lost by the ridiculous fringes.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
13,562
Location
Illinois, USA
I wonder, though - does anyone in US politics really have much credibility talking about fiscal responsibility? The Democrats are pretty upfront about being prepared to take on very expensive programs, and the Republicans never fail to rack up the debt (sometimes spectacularly so) every time they get the reigns. It seems to me that America has been living on borrowed money for a long time, and the idea of fiscal responsibility is only wheeled out when someone is spending on something they don't like. I don't think any of them have much standing to call themselves fiscal hawks.
 
Joined
Nov 8, 2014
Messages
12,085
I really think putting the social conservatives under the same tent as the fiscal conservatives hurt both groups. We end up being saddled with the worst of both come election time- the dems happily trot out the whole anti-science trope and there's not much that can be done because a small but vocal portion of the people under the umbrella fit the meme. And who wants to vote for the adults in the room that pay attention to the deficit? Nobody wants to vote for the guy that doesn't dole out free money left and right.

I expect the left has similar problems since we can tie reasonable climate hawks to AOC's cow farts and legit social change can be linked to the rioters/looters. Potentially useful concepts easily lost by the ridiculous fringes.

Compromise, of course, is the answer, both inter- and intra-party compromise, and our Constitution was written to encourage compromise in every way they could think of, imperfect humans that they were. But everyone's on the warpath now.

And Republicans' brand of this business is a bit more troubling, isn't it? Theirs has already spilled blood in an attempted coup, however clumsy it might have been. I mocked this conservative clambake a bit, but it has me worried. As I listen to the clips of speakers, such as Pompeo and the most-warmly-received Hawley bragging about his vote against democracy, I have no doubt the Republican Party has become the Authoritarian Party. The clambake folks are wildly cheering against democracy and in favor of making their own vote meaningless, thereby rendering themselves powerless and truly in thrall to their idols. And they'll make serfs of us all, because that's all we'll be without a vote.

Some say the battle for the Republican Party has not yet concluded, but I have yet to see a battle and continue to see no signs of one threatening to begin. I did see McConnell, looking like he might wet himself or burst into nervous laughter as he spoke to the cameras and his own party in hopeful conviction that what he said would hopefully become reality, eagerly point to how united the Republican Party was in their opposition to the covid-relief bill. That's the best he could muster, the party's united opposition to the Democrats and their commitment to the warpath. I also heard him say he would absolutely support Trump if he ran a second time. That doesn't sound like the beginnings of a battle to clean up the party in the defense of democracy. That sounds like appeasement, and appeasement never works, especially with the crowd Trump has thrown the door open to -- the bigots looking to spark a race war, the bigots who don't necessarily need a race war but were too dull to be interested in politics until Trump started kicking people around, the holy rolling End of Timers, the holy rollers who believe Trump is a vessel of God, the holly-rolling pro-lifers, the anti-government militants looking to start any kind of war and all the rest who round out that nearly circular Venn diagram of shared beliefs.

I know there are traditional Republicans, but they look to me like dinosaurs now. Here's my worst-case scenario I fear from this clambake: Trump announces his candidacy in 2024. The highest-ranking Republican turtle has already pledged his support. Even if it isn't Trump, it'll be someone of his choosing, even if it isn't made tonight. And we've already seen how Trump's brand of politics would turn us all into Russian serfs with meaningless votes. There will be no fight from the elected dinosaurs, as there hasn't been to date. There is nothing to fight for, because it was all a lie.

But 2024 will be a battle for democracy. That's something to fight for. I often wonder this when I hear these very high polling numbers of agreement within the Republican Party cincerning previously unheard questions of whether political violence will be necessary and their like: Have all the voting dinosaurs already jumped ship, leaving the Venn-diagram vandals smiling at each across their circle jerk, or has so much of the party turned to their darker angels in these trying times?

Closet optimist that I am, I hope you and your fiscal conservatives and all the voting dinosaurs, no matter where they've landed themselves today, join me in compromise at the ballot box, in defending democracy by holding our noses to vote for at least some of these Democrats, because there is no other choice, unless you choose serfdom. Personally, I have zero fucking interest in being a serf, and I'd appreciate not being dragged into it by those more interested in settling their personal grievances than in living free.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 16, 2010
Messages
4,813
I don't think any of them have much standing to call themselves fiscal hawks.
Largely agree. Thing is, the last group that actually dug into fiscal responsibility was vilified by both sides and eventually got diverted into the hateful loons that the media and establishment politicians painted them as right from the beginning to discredit them. That's the tea party, if it wasn't obvious.

Prior to that, you've really got to go back to H Ross And Admiral Sleepycap. That whole uproar lasted about two election cycles before the establishment types stomped it out, too. Also reflects the last time I completely pissed away my vote, and helped usher in Slick Willie…

Free money plays great with the voters. So really, outside of the occasional outbreak of fiscal sanity around the country, true and lasting fiscal conservatism (however we might define it) hasn't got a chance in hell.

Which again leads to the attitude, "They're all crooks so vote for the one that will steal the least from me personally." A bit short-sighted, and certainly selfish, but there you are.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
13,562
Location
Illinois, USA
That sounds like appeasement, and appeasement never works, especially with the crowd Trump has thrown the door open to -- the bigots looking to spark a race war, the bigots who don't necessarily need a race war but were too dull to be interested in politics until Trump started kicking people around, the holy rolling End of Timers, the holy rollers who believe Trump is a vessel of God, the holly-rolling pro-lifers, the anti-government militants looking to start any kind of war and all the rest who round out that nearly circular Venn diagram of shared beliefs.
If you'll allow a little "flexibility" on the parallels for dramatic effect...

That sounds like surrender, and surrender never works, especially with the crowd Pelosi and her cronies have thrown the door open to-- the bigots looking to spark a race war, the bigots who don't necessarily need a race war but were too dull to be interested in politics until BLM started burning shit down, the cult-like Climate Alarmists, the cult-like people who truly believe Trump is the anti-Christ, the baby killing pro-choicers, the anti-government militants looking for any excuse to violently reject any and all authority and all the rest who round out the nearly circular Venn diagram of shared beliefs.

I'm not seeing too many olive branches. You talk about serfdom and authoritarianism, I'd say it's going to get real interesting hearing the tortured justifications when Kamala (assuming dementia-ridden Biden is promptly eased aside) tries to send the military in to bust up a group of Oath Keepers because she doesn't like their politics and Pelosi's still holding a grudge.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
13,562
Location
Illinois, USA
And I'd argue that is acting in fear of what might happen, rather than an honest examination of the things that have actually happened. I find it hard to equate the attempted burning of a single courthouse or the successful burnings of multiple fast-food joints and Footlockers to the violent overthrow of our form of government, of democracy. A Wendy's is a far cry from our Capitol. The Oath Keepers were part of the mob that stormed our Capitol with the expressed purpose of disrupting the electoral process, so their politics include overthrowing our government.

You'd defend seditionists, but I would not. I'll defend their right to talk about a new form of government, but I draw the line at acting in violent rebellion, or those who aided them, which incidentally is the same line drawn by the law.

You're making a lot of assumptions about what Kamala Harris would do, including a conspiratorial suggestion about seizing power, but if those Oath Keepers were at the Capitol Jan. 6, she'd be acting within the law and in defense of the same Constitution those very same Oath Keepers claimed they love so well as they pissed all over it.

I'd defend our Constitution and our government. But it seems you would not, and I've already seen what the Oath Keeoers would do to it.
 
Joined
Sep 16, 2010
Messages
4,813
I guess I can differentiate between the criminals that broke into a government building and the rest of the group. I don't particularly care for their politics, but it's no less authoritarian to go after that group-at-large than it would be to raid a BLM meeting. It's just a politically acceptable bit of hypocrisy and nothing more.

Yes, my hypothetical is, well, hypothetical, but would you really bet your last dollar that any aspect of it 100% won't happen? And I'm not talking Lloyd Christmas "So there's a chance", I'm saying an honest appraisal could easily see those events happening.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
13,562
Location
Illinois, USA
I'm not a gambling man, at least with money, but, yes, I would. In this case, I think the odds would be wildly in my favor. Maybe, if enough people think like you, we'll be in the same gulag later, and we can discuss in person the benefits of not making decisions from a place of fear. Maybe Navalny will be in the barracks next door. We can ask him what he thinks, because every damned thing is a double-edged sword.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 16, 2010
Messages
4,813
I don't think so, not in a direct way. For reasons of personal freedom, we don't have a specific domestic-terrorism law, like we do for foreign bad actors, which allow us to step all over the personal rights an American citizen would have, such as indefinitely jailing them at Guantanamo Bay without charges. But we have existing charges for just about every damn thing, so the actual terroristic behavior of a American could certainly be charged criminally.

So, I don't think what Christopher Wray has to say makes much of a difference in court, other than being something a lawyer could point to in making his arguments. It does, however, have a rather large effect on removing the lead from the asses of his own people in the FBI, the primary agency for investigating this kind of business, as well as encouraging cops and prosecutors across the country to forget about politics and do the right thing.
 
Joined
Sep 16, 2010
Messages
4,813
I believe this deserves note, just for the record. A lawyer for the Arizona GOP has remarkably told the truth while making his case before the Supreme Court in defense of voter-suppression laws. When asked by our newest SC justice why the AZ GOP is interested in preserving laws that require legitimately cast votes that were simply cast at the incorrect polling place (which is a circumstance often contrived in Republican-dominated states that switch the polling places around at the last minute in targeted areas) to be thrown out entirely, he broke the first rule of lawyering by telling the God's honest truth: "Because that would put us at a competitive disadvantage relative to Democrats. Politics is a zero-sum game."

Thanks, asshole. Maybe now reasonable people won't be forced to listen to Republicans trying to convince us how we've got it all wrong anymore.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 16, 2010
Messages
4,813
Joined
Sep 16, 2010
Messages
4,813
Mitch McConnell is planning to slip out the back door of the house he helped set on fire. It's not such a comfortable place to put your feet up when you shit all over the floor, is it? But Turtle Dick isn't done with his vandalism, of course. He'd change the law and tradition of his home state to ease his escape and aid his band of thieves and eager fascist supplicants.
I read the article, but don't quite get what he is trying to change.

Does the governor go from being able to:
- Appoint anyone, from the same party of the one who resigns, to the position.

To instead:
- The resigned being able to pick three candidates they like and the governor has to choose between only them?
 
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
2,012
Location
Sweden
As I understood it (I'm no expert on every state's laws, but this has generally been the norm), the state's governor picks the replacement for retiring congressmen. I recall others postponing their retirements in the hope of a governor being elected from their same party, so as not to cause a shift in power for their beloved political parties. This is just another power grab. McConnell, of course, wants to change the rules of the game, because he wants to step away for whatever personal reasons without hurting the GOP in terms of the power it holds. Kentucky currently has a Democratic governor, so he would likely choose a Democrat. McConnell wants to change the rules so that the political party losing an elected douchebag to retirement would force the governor to choose from a short list of replacements provided by the political party losing said douchebag to retirement, in this case the Republican Party.

This change in the law would give considerably more power to political parties than they already have (In this case, McConnell would be picking his own replacement.), while significantly decreasing the power of the establishment and the governor's office.

The above seems a bit rambling to me now: The change would no longer allow the governor to pick whatever replacement he wants, i.e. one from his own party, but would force him to pick a replacement from the same party of the guy retiring….and moreover would have to pick a person of the choosing of the political party of the retiring congressman.
 
Joined
Sep 16, 2010
Messages
4,813
That seems totally fair to me. If someone resigns here, a replacement is selected from the same party. The people voted in a person from that party, so until there is a by-election any replacement should also be from that party.
 
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
12,842
Location
Australia
I wouldn't have such a problem if that were the norm here, but it's not. It's just McConnell rewriting the rules to benefit himself and the GOP, which continues to undermine our democracy as it teeters on the brink.
 
Joined
Sep 16, 2010
Messages
4,813
A message from Lauren Boebert.



:rotfl:
 
Joined
Nov 8, 2014
Messages
12,085
That's all she's got? Fox News, in general, has been having a hell of a time coming up with things to rip Biden about.
 
Joined
Sep 16, 2010
Messages
4,813
Click-click. BOOM.

The rest is just window dressing.
 
Joined
Nov 8, 2014
Messages
12,085
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom