|
Yay. Whatever. There are other better people to use as examples. You don’t, absolutely do not, need to “hand it to Strom Thurmond”.
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 13:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 19:07 |
|
|
Murgos posted:Yay. Whatever. There are other better people to use as examples. Alright. Nixon served in the Pacific reloading boats and was so good at poker that he paid for law school at Duke. Kennedy rescued a guy from drowning and made it to an island where someone whipped up a radio with like coconuts and palm fronds and they were rescued four days later. Carter is obviously the best but never saw combat. Thurmond will always be notable for me because I can say I saw campaign ads for someone who received presidential votes from Civil War survivors.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 13:49
|
|
|
I will also note that older Gen X of the Alex P Keaton era loved them some Reagan. poo poo I remember them announcing when Reagan bombed Libya back in 1986 over the high school PA system and people cheering.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 13:56
|
|
|
FLIPADELPHIA posted:George W Bush killed a million Iraqis and he's now remembered as an unfortunate but well intentioned family man who just got a little in over his head. He pals around with the Obamas at every opportunity. I can't speak for everyone, the world's full of idiots, but as far as I can tell GWB is remembered as a president who did terrible things for terrible reasons and made the world dramatically worse but at least didn't try to prevent the peaceful transfer of power when his opponents won election. It's a low bar, and one most of us didn't expect to have to think about in the near future, but there it is.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 14:15
|
|
|
The Artificial Kid posted:I can't speak for everyone, the world's full of idiots, but as far as I can tell GWB is remembered as a president who did terrible things for terrible reasons and made the world dramatically worse but at least didn't try to prevent the peaceful transfer of power when his opponents won election. It's a low bar, and one most of us didn't expect to have to think about in the near future, but there it is. His approval rating generally including among Democrats climbed before 1/6/21
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 14:20
|
|
|
PC LOAD LETTER posted:But yeah still mildly bewildering that so many D's have good opinion of him now. I agree, but let's not overstate it and remember that the poll in question had this figure at 8%. poo poo, it had 2% of Ds saying Trump had been the best, which to me is a lot more mind-blowing.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 14:23
|
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:Nixon served in the Pacific reloading boats and was so good at poker that he paid for law school at Duke. Nixon being extremely good at poker is incredibly unsurprising.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 14:25
|
|
FLIPADELPHIA posted:Are you going to completely ignore the poll posted above that shows him doubling his approval rate over the last few decades? Or do you want to keep creepily psychoanalyzing posters? You didn’t post the poll when you made up and assigned an elaborate fantasy of how people view Bush. Exercise some self control. edit: The poll that you did not post does not support that "George W Bush killed a million Iraqis and he's now remembered as an unfortunate but well intentioned family man who just got a little in over his head. He pals around with the Obamas at every opportunity." (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 14:44 on May 17, 2024 |
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 14:26
|
|
|
Yeah I guess the made up narrative I had in my delusional brain ended up matching facts, purely out of chance. Lucky me!
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 14:36
|
|
|
What does this have to do with trump legal troubles?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 14:40
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:What does this have to do with trump legal troubles? It allows the user deploying it to poo poo on and dismiss both the proceedings and the discussion of the proceedings. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 14:45
|
|
|
Mercury_Storm posted:Well.. Every age group loved him at the time, especially when he ran for reelection From 1984, first column is percentage of vote, second column is Mondale's share, third column is Reagan's share:  In 1980 Reagan had fewer young people's support. Second column is Carter; last column is Anderson:  Tying it back on topic, imagine Trump with a folksy smile, less Democratic pushback for awful legislation (Tip O'Neill was Speaker when Social Security was structured to gently caress over boomers & beyond), and way more Democratic voter support and you're close to Reagan, except what Reagan wrought was far worse for the country. (edited to better answer edited op) Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 15:38 on May 17, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 14:52
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:What does this have to do with trump legal troubles? Yeah sorry, bit of a tangent on the topic of how Republican presidents tend to get rehabilitated by both the media and liberals. Whether or not the same happens to Trump I think is an open question, but there is definitely precedent for it. Previous poster made a very good point though: W has had the good sense to stay out of the public spotlight and Trump would never be able to do that.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 15:06
|
|
|
I was very little when Reagan was president but I definitely remember it feeling akin to Dubya much later. What you got on TV was his aw shucks bullshit and the terrible stuff he was doing didn't see air at all
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 15:25
|
|
|
I think a large part of why people hold onto the "W was just a bumbling moron manipulated by the clique of blood-gargling psychopaths who ran his cabinet" idea, at whatever level of popularity it has, is that he was a bumbling moron, and his cabinet was full of blood-gargling psychopaths. Crucially however, this if anything makes his crimes worse, as 1) it shows you who he thought it was a good idea to listen to, and 2) that doesn't mean he didn't know just what the gently caress he was doing the whole time.DeathChicken posted:I was very little when Reagan was president but I definitely remember it feeling akin to Dubya much later. What you got on TV was his aw shucks bullshit and the terrible stuff he was doing didn't see air at all I was also quite young during his administration, and my chief memories of the Reagan years were horror that he was going to kill off Big Bird and, once I could get my head around the idea, expecting to die in a Soviet retaliatory strike.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 15:37
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:expecting to die in a Soviet retaliatory strike.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 15:54
|
|
|
brugroffil posted:His approval rating generally including among Democrats climbed before 1/6/21 So? What does this have to do with anything? What's the point you're making here? I'm sure there's plenty of people who went and lived through terrible situations and terrible people who a decade later are like, "Maybe it wasn't that bad...?" Willa Rogers posted:Every age group loved him at the time, especially when he ran for reelection That wouldn't be Trump though. And probably wouldn't have let him win the Republican primaries.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 16:02
|
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:
I doubt Duke Law was expensive enough back then for this to be as impressive as it sounds today.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 16:10
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:I think a large part of why people hold onto the "W was just a bumbling moron manipulated by the clique of blood-gargling psychopaths who ran his cabinet" idea, at whatever level of popularity it has, is that he was a bumbling moron, and his cabinet was full of blood-gargling psychopaths. Crucially however, this if anything makes his crimes worse, as 1) it shows you who he thought it was a good idea to listen to, and 2) that doesn't mean he didn't know just what the gently caress he was doing the whole time. I vaguely recall the Iran-Contra hearings and understanding that Ollie North broke the law. I was confused later (am still confused) on Fox giving him a show once he got out of prison and treating him like a hero who people needed to listen to for protecting Reagan. It all makes a lot more sense these days in retrospect.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 16:13
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:So? What does this have to do with anything? What's the point you're making here? I'm sure there's plenty of people who went and lived through terrible situations and terrible people who a decade later are like, "Maybe it wasn't that bad...?" "Bush didn't try to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power*, unlike Trump" doesn't explain his rise in popularity in the years immediately after he left office. Which seemed to be the argument of the post I responded to.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 16:26
|
|
|
It's funny, I was actually talking about this to someone the other day. When you get to the point that you "miss" the days of republicans like GWB strictly because he DIDN'T command and call an entire subsection of the population to rally behind him and overthrow the government all while handling 9/11 with a basic level of dignity (until losing his mind and using it as leverage to carry on his daddy's crusade), you know the world is topsy turvy. Obviously, preferring a wealthy southern war criminal over an overt fascist does not equal favorable views like these polls seem to suggest, and I don't for a second want to give the idea that I think that man shouldn't have seen justice for the millions of lives he ruined/snuffed out, but when comparing one evil to another, it's got me wondering if that plays a role in the numbers.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 16:27
|
|
|
If Trumpism wasn't dead after January 6 it's not going to die of its own volition, no matter how much time passes. The only possibility is that they somehow do something worse, and that is somehow bad enough that everyone sane left standing is United in saying it needs to be destroyed
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 16:36
|
|
|
brugroffil posted:"Bush didn't try to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power*, unlike Trump" doesn't explain his rise in popularity in the years immediately after he left office. Which seemed to be the argument of the post I responded to. I made a post earlier than that post which provided a reasonable alternative explanation, and also provided one in my own post. Raenir Salazar posted:There's no reason to believe this will happen with Trump; he had his shot to be a normal albeit Republican president in the brief moment he had standing there next to Obama, he's never going to have his image rehabilitated by liberals.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 16:46
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I made a post earlier than that post which provided a reasonable alternative explanation, and also provided one in my own post. Ok? I responded to someone else. What is wrong with your brain.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 16:58
|
|
|
brugroffil posted:Ok? I responded to someone else. What is wrong with your brain. More than one person can participate in a conversation, so I'm not sure if it matters that you replied to someone else, my post still in this case responds to the point you made; it isn't like you provided an alternate explanation and in context of the discussion being about concerns about Trump's image being rehabilitated it didn't seem like you disagreed with the idea that Dems might come to have increased approval of Trump however many years from now and its important to emphasize that this is a nonsense data point you're bringing up out of context.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 17:14
|
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:Kennedy rescued a guy from drowning and made it to an island where someone whipped up a radio with like coconuts and palm fronds and they were rescued four days later. Mike Vinich is a local legend.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 17:30
|
|
|
brugroffil posted:"Bush didn't try to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power*, unlike Trump" doesn't explain his rise in popularity in the years immediately after he left office. Which seemed to be the argument of the post I responded to. Trump doing so was only one step of the increasing crazification of the Republican party which was ongoing with the Tea Party movement as soon as Obama took office, Republicans openly declaring that they were aiming, not to improve the country but to make sure Obama was a one-termer, etc. Bush slinking off without leaning into that probably was a relief to some people by comparison. Overall most people are just angrier at their enemies of the moment who are doing harm to them right now than they are at those in the past who have moved on and no longer act against them. There are like lots of people who still have Hillary Clinton living rent free in their heads nearly a decade after her last attempt at public office, ahead of people who are affecting their lives and those of others right this moment. To the point where they have to tie her into what their other enemies are doing today just to give it spice. That seems stranger than even well-justified animosity to Bush fading as newer Republicans promising greater horrors take the stage.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 17:31
|
|
|
The Tea Party was something. I rolled up to one of those protests with a graph of the national debt with respect to time, in current dollars, only from official government sources, made my own drat self (actual Excel proficiency), and some people there just flat-out refused to believe the numbers were real. That was my first indication that logic and evidence are in a world they take no part in. Also Bush got whitewashed because it turns out we have the attention spans of gnats (when we can be bothered to care at all) when it comes to a shitload of Not Americans dying or being tortured for any reason. I think Trump will still be remembered poorly because his fuckery actually affects us directly.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 17:58
|
|
|
I'd argue it can be traced back at least to Nixon. Between the Southern Strategy realigning southern racists into the Republican Party and Roger Ailes starting Fox News because he was incensed that Republicans wouldn't close ranks and defend Nixon from impeachment, you have the seeds of a party takeover founded on power at any cost catering to the worst elements in society Follow that up with Reagan saying "government is the problem", Newt Gingrich weaponizing government dysfunctions and getting rid of the Congressional fact-finding apparatus, and the absolute derangement that comes from a black man becoming president, you have fertile ground for the fever dream that is Trumpism
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 18:15
|
|
|
It just occurred to me that if Biden wins reelection, the Dems have to keep their majority in the Senate. Trump will be screaming that the election was stolen from him again, and there ain't no fuckin way in hell that Republican Senators are going to certify the Electoral College's votes for a Biden win.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 18:26
|
|
|
Star Man posted:It just occurred to me that if Biden wins reelection, the Dems have to keep their majority in the Senate. Trump will be screaming that the election was stolen from him again, and there ain't no fuckin way in hell that Republican Senators are going to certify the Electoral College's votes for a Biden win.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 18:31
|
|
|
DTurtle posted:Senators don't have anything to do with certifying a win. They do in a unique circumstance which is when the VP says there is no certified EC votes and then the house and senate go off and certify results by state separately. However, in this scenario you would be correct because Harris would be VP overseeing the count and would simply deny any attempt to not count valid EC slates.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 18:39
|
|
|
Murgos posted:They do in a unique circumstance which is when the VP says there is no certified EC votes and then the house and senate go off and certify results by state separately. No, that was the previous law. Biden's first Congress passed the Electoral Count Reform Act which confirmed the VP's role was purely ceremonial and required any objection to any state's electors to be made in writing and signed by 20% of each of both the House and the Senate.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 18:52
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:No, that was the previous law. Biden's first Congress passed the Electoral Count Reform Act which confirmed the VP's role was purely ceremonial and required any objection to any state's electors to be made in writing and signed by 20% of each of both the House and the Senate. Ah, okay. I'm not actually up on all the changes via the ECRA.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 19:33
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:No, that was the previous law. Biden's first Congress passed the Electoral Count Reform Act which confirmed the VP's role was purely ceremonial and required any objection to any state's electors to be made in writing and signed by 20% of each of both the House and the Senate. ... That seems like a low bar for Trump lackeys' to take advantage of. Thinking it through though, from the show of support at Trump's trial, you've got what, 3 die hard senators and roughly 10 reps that would do anything? I'd say the freedom caucus would be all in, that's 36 members. So that means they'd need 17 senators to sign on and about 50 or so house reps as well. I would think the rep bar could be reached, getting a bit less than half the sitting Republican senators would be harder though. I don't think Mcconnell would allow it, although he would be putting the efforts front and center to "just asking questions" in the news.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 19:39
|
|
|
Murgos posted:Ah, okay. I'm not actually up on all the changes via the ECRA. The ECRA made the following changes to the process, among other less important things: -Codifies that the VP's rule is purely ministerial and they do not make any independent decisions that affect the process -Raise the threshold for a sustained objection to electoral vote counting to 1/5 the members of both branches (up from the previous 1 of each) -Codifies that only governors, or persons designated by pre-existing state law, can submit slates of electors In practice this means that the specific strategy they tried in 2020 is now explicitly illegal so they'll try a different one next time haveblue fucked around with this message at 19:49 on May 17, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 19:44
|
|
|
haveblue posted:The ECRA made the following changes to the process, among other less important things: What if the state legislators send electors that don't match the popular vote?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 20:13
|
|
|
Donkringel posted:... That seems like a low bar for Trump lackeys' to take advantage of. Independence posted:What if the state legislators send electors that don't match the popular vote? DTurtle fucked around with this message at 20:24 on May 17, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 20:20
|
|
|
C. Everett Koop posted:It's more likely that in 20 years people will be openly worshipping effigies of the man and he will be considered the only founding father who's opinons and beliefs are to be taken under consideration. Ah yes, the Reagan-style hagiography.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2024 00:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 19:07 |
|
|
So does that mean eighty-seven Republican representatives and twenty Republican senators can raise on objection to each state's electoral votes?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2024 00:46
|
|