|
Even if Trump loses the election, i have doubt it will stop him to campaign.
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 10:16 |
|
|
Much like Sanders, Trump and his ideology isn't going anywhere after the election. Someone is going to pick up the ball.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 23:21
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:Much like Sanders, Trump and his ideology isn't going anywhere after the election. Someone is going to pick up the ball. I really hope Clinton's election doesn't trigger Tea Party II.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 00:45
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:Much like Sanders, Trump and his ideology isn't going anywhere after the election. Someone is going to pick up the ball. They'll be carrying the standard of an ever shrinking electorate, so more power to them. Just keep picking that banner up like Johnny Reb at Vicksburg. Remember that Romney won the most white people since Reagan, and that resulted in an rear end whoopin.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 01:14
|
|
|
Jonas Albrecht posted:I really hope Clinton's election doesn't trigger Tea Party II. The Tea Party was years in the making. The Recession combined with black president just accelerated it. Gyges posted:They'll be carrying the standard of an ever shrinking electorate, so more power to them. Just keep picking that banner up like Johnny Reb at Vicksburg. Remember that Romney won the most white people since Reagan, and that resulted in an rear end whoopin. The problem is the House which is the white elephant in the room that the Democrats constantly ignore. They occasionally point to gerrymandering, but continue to do nothing about it. Until Democrats find a way to motivate their base and bring issues such as proper representation for the house to the forefront they will continue to be essentially a car stuck in the mud when it comes to political power.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 01:21
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:The Tea Party was years in the making. The Recession combined with black president just accelerated it. While gerrymandering plays a role, a large part of the unrepresentative nature of the house has to do with political population density. Generally, cities are more democratic than suburbs/rural areas are Republican. So when you're making districts they tend to pack democrats in urban areas while rural areas become less densely, but still majority, Republican. There's nothing that the Democrats can really do about gerrymandering for the time being. Until it goes back up to the Supreme Court and political gerrymandering gets struck down, they're going to have to fight with ballot initiatives and state amendments.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 02:25
|
|
|
Gyges posted:While gerrymandering plays a role, a large part of the unrepresentative nature of the house has to do with political population density. Generally, cities are more democratic than suburbs/rural areas are Republican. So when you're making districts they tend to pack democrats in urban areas while rural areas become less densely, but still majority, Republican. There's nothing that the Democrats can really do about gerrymandering for the time being. Until it goes back up to the Supreme Court and political gerrymandering gets struck down, they're going to have to fight with ballot initiatives and state amendments. Yeah the cities vs suburbs is what I meant about proportional representation. And ballot initiatives and state amendments is what Democrats should be focusing on in lock step. Hell, the left in general should.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 04:10
|
|
|
Air is lava! posted:FDOTUS. That has a weird ring to it. strangely appealing. On the other hand FGOTUS (first gentleman) has a unique appeal.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 06:00
|
|
|
First Lord of the United States. I vaguely recall that the Prime Minister in the UK is technically the First Lord of the Treasury.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 06:09
|
|
|
Kinda surprised the main segment was about doping, when he brought up the Olympics I thought for sure it was going to be about human rights or corruption or something. I know it's basically fraud in a multi-billion dollar industry but I find it difficult to really care about anywhere near the level of his usual segments.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 06:23
|
|
|
Ror posted:Kinda surprised the main segment was about doping, when he brought up the Olympics I thought for sure it was going to be about human rights or corruption or something. I know it's basically fraud in a multi-billion dollar industry but I find it difficult to really care about anywhere near the level of his usual segments. it's a lot of the same stuff in the FIFA segments and the winter olympic segment
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 06:27
|
|
|
Those Russian Olympians sure do love their steroids.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 06:38
|
|
|
oh btw we're taking 3 weeks off BYE
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 06:50
|
|
|
Doctor Reynolds posted:oh btw we're taking 3 weeks off BYE I like the Brexit chat but I find it hard to summon any outrage about doping. I guess it's bad to have big fancy international agencies spend a lot of money not accomplishing anything. But really, so what? Am I supposed to be very sad because the robo-russians outran that lady? it is possible other people care more about sport than me
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 07:13
|
|
|
The actor that played the runner, they spelled his name wrong in the credits. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 09:57
|
|
|
The First President Clinton
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 10:22
|
|
|
It's got to be a FLOTUS acronym because that's what all the stationary, nomenclature, and online presence is built around. So First Ladiesman of the Unites States, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 15:58
|
|
|
I think he's technically still President Clinton as far as these things go.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 16:13
|
|
|
Gyges posted:It's got to be a FLOTUS acronym because that's what all the stationary, nomenclature, and online presence is built around. First Laddie!
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 16:24
|
|
|
First Lout.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 18:28
|
|
|
Sivart13 posted:
It's interesting, because that was one of the points of the segment. We kinda don't care enough to go through the trouble of actually properly regulating it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
Asiina posted:It's interesting, because that was one of the points of the segment. We kinda don't care enough to go through the trouble of actually properly regulating it. Yeah the thing about it is that while there's a lot of money on the line, that money is going to be spent regardless. The only people with real incentive to care are the athletes who don't cheat. Your average citizen will forget who wins gold medals in the Olympics about a month after it finishes, even if it's their own country (unless it's some huge upset that they won't shut the gently caress up about like "the miracle on ice"). I think because the Olympics is a huge collection of different sports, rather than one focused competition like the world cup or the superbowl, people don't generally take the individual sports as seriously. The Cheshire Cat fucked around with this message at 22:12 on Jun 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
I had a friend who saw Now You See Me 2; he had that same feeling of "What's the point of this? Why am I here?"
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
Echo Chamber posted:I had a friend who saw Now You See Me 2; he had that same feeling of "What's the point of this? Why am I here?" That's sad. I sort of liked the first one. Maybe I wont see it then. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 23:51
|
|
|
Air is lava! posted:That's sad. I sort of liked the first one. Maybe I wont see it then. Watch Money Monster instead, I haven't seen a funnier high tension drama all year.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 10:26
|
|
|
The first Now You See Me was great because it finally answered the age old question of "you know how an actor will do a lovely movie right before their career gets an upswing and then it comes out and people are like yeah he only did this because of his career being low?", now we got to see what happened when like 6 actors all had that happen at once in the same movie.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 10:44
|
|
|
Echo Chamber posted:I had a friend who saw Now You See Me 2; he had that same feeling of "What's the point of this? Why am I here?" I had no idea this movie existed.  Favorite part of the episode though was how he pronounced, "...roided out athletes who responded by yelling 'survey make me angry', crumpling it up, and throwing it to the moon."
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 14:41
|
|
|
IRQ posted:His campaign organization is a-shambles, has no money, is being disavowed by prominent republicans all over the place, and yet he's polling close to or in outlying polls ahead of Clinton. Yeah this is all very inaccurate. I'd suggest you check out the DnD GOP Collapse thread on why exactly. About the ep, it was freaking brutal. And sad. Extremely sad.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 19:08
|
|
|
Atomizer posted:I had no idea this movie existed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:Yeah this is all very inaccurate. I'd suggest you check out the DnD GOP Collapse thread on why exactly. I'd rather Trump win than do that. Also no it isn't.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
There actually was a bit like that in the original Cinderella where one of the ugly stepsisters tried cutting off her heels so her feet would fit the shoes, but it didn't work because the prince saw the blood. Transparency.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
IRQ posted:I'd rather Trump win than do that. Your point about polling is objectively wrong. But I don't want to get too much into presidential elections in a TV thread.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
pwn posted:How do you make a sequel to a film called Now You See Me and not call it, Now You Don't? Film Vault fan?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
pwn posted:How do you make a sequel to a film called Now You See Me and not call it, Now You Don't? This is the most unforgiveable thing about this terrible movie.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 01:36
|
|
|
pwn posted:How do you make a sequel to a film called Now You See Me and not call it, Now You Don't? But then what do you call the third one?????
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 07:57
|
|
|
Procrastinator posted:But then what do you call the third one????? There won't be a third one. Problem solved.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 08:03
|
|
|
Procrastinator posted:But then what do you call the third one????? Is This Your Card?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 09:32
|
|
|
Pyroxene Stigma posted:Is This Your Card? It isn't? Well check your purse then.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 09:55
|
|
|
Procrastinator posted:But then what do you call the third one????? Now I see you. Or possibly "Now you see me 3: Peekaboo".
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 15:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 10:16 |
|
|
Gonz posted:There won't be a third one. Problem solved. It's made good money ($164mill international). There will be a third.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 15:28
|
|
