uspol november: as it turns out they could not stump the trump

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > uspol november: as it turns out they could not stump the trump

«‹›594 »

Inferior Third Season: Jan 15, 2005

Stereotype posted:

Trump seems like a Keynesian which means he is right about exactly one thing that Republicans (and a lot of democrats) are dead wrong about.

Trump doesn't know poo poo about economics. He just likes building large things so he can put his name on them. It's just happenstance that creating Trump Interstate Highway and all of the various Trump bridges and airports will be beneficial to the economy.

# ? Nov 17, 2016 01:39

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 6, 2024 17:46

ZombieApostate: Mar 13, 2011; Sorry, I didn't read your post.

I'm too busy replying to what I wish you said

Anybody know where you can find Democratic voter turnout for 2000 or 2004 and 2016? I'd like to see what the comparison looks like when you aren't comparing Hillary to a statistical anomaly.

# ? Nov 17, 2016 01:40

Lemming: Apr 21, 2008

Fojar38 posted:

Still an open question as to how you can have Keynesian policies while cutting taxes

Cutting taxes for the poor during an economic downturn when interest on debt is extremely low is very Keynesian, actually

# ? Nov 17, 2016 01:42

Covok: May 27, 2013; Yet where is that woman now? Tell me, in what heave does she reside? None of them. Because no God bothered to listen or care. If that is what you think it means to be a God, then you and all your teachings are welcome to do as that poor women did. And vanish from these realms forever.

Anyone know the % of democrats in the USA vs % of republicans of overall population?

# ? Nov 17, 2016 01:42

Samurai Sanders: Nov 4, 2003; Pillbug

Covok posted:

Anyone know the % of democrats in the USA vs % of republicans of overall population?

Would that include the apparently huge number of people who said they were going to vote but then didn't when it mattered most?

# ? Nov 17, 2016 01:43

rscott: Dec 10, 2009

FactsAreUseless posted:

Because people need to send the message that it isn't okay to have someone like Donald Trump in the presidency. I know it's too late, because every single major Democrat has already rolled over and started normalizing Trump, but they're going to regret it.

I don't necessarily disagree with you but a lot of democrats are going to have issues with the party copping the tea party strategy

# ? Nov 17, 2016 01:44

Covok: May 27, 2013; Yet where is that woman now? Tell me, in what heave does she reside? None of them. Because no God bothered to listen or care. If that is what you think it means to be a God, then you and all your teachings are welcome to do as that poor women did. And vanish from these realms forever.

Samurai Sanders posted:

Would that include the apparently huge number of people who said they were going to vote but then didn't when it mattered most?

Yes

# ? Nov 17, 2016 01:44

FactsAreUseless: Feb 16, 2011

rscott posted:

I don't necessarily disagree with you but a lot of democrats are going to have issues with the party copping the tea party strategy

Yes, but Democrats also have a lot of issues with doing anything or taking a stand or a risk or allowing themselves to experience one single moment of discomfort or vulnerability so who gives a poo poo about them?

# ? Nov 17, 2016 01:44

Venuz Patrol: Mar 27, 2011

rscott posted:

I don't necessarily disagree with you but a lot of democrats are going to have issues with the party copping the tea party strategy

a lot of democrats can suck my queer nuts, to be honest

# ? Nov 17, 2016 01:45

Instant Sunrise: Apr 12, 2007; The manger babies don't have feelings. You said it yourself.

sweart gliwere posted:

First order as CiC: send Seal Team 6 to locate Uday and Qusay Hussein's decor guy.

George Bluth? He hasn't been seen since Cinco de Cuatro.

# ? Nov 17, 2016 01:47

Crain: Jun 27, 2007; I had a beer once with Stephen Miller and now I like him.

I also tried to ban someone from a Discord for pointing out what an unrelenting shithead I am! I'm even dumb enough to think it worked!

Can someone repost the trump application sites?

EDIT: Nevermind, found them.

Crain fucked around with this message at 01:54 on Nov 17, 2016

# ? Nov 17, 2016 01:48

zxqv8: Oct 21, 2010; Did somebody call about a Ravager problem?

Tobermory posted:

Lots of them.

Thank you!

# ? Nov 17, 2016 01:49

DaveWoo: Aug 14, 2004; Fun Shoe

So just out of curiosity, what's there to stop a Trump-backed infrastructure bill from being corrupt as all hell, and serving to funnel hundreds of millions of dollars into Trump's own companies?

# ? Nov 17, 2016 01:50

MrBuddyLee: Aug 24, 2004; IN DEBUT, I SPEW!!!

One unexpected bright side to this election is that it does away with the myth that you have to be a perfect citizen on paper in order to be elected. There's hope for dirty hippies, layabouts, stoners and minor criminals everywhere.

# ? Nov 17, 2016 01:50

Party Plane Jones: Jul 1, 2007; by Reene; Fun Shoe

DaveWoo posted:

So just out of curiosity, what's there to stop a Trump-backed infrastructure bill from being corrupt as all hell, and serving to funnel hundreds of millions of dollars into Trump's own companies?

Trump doesn't actually own construction or engineering, so unless each construction worker is being solely in Trump Brand Steak Rations effectively nil.

# ? Nov 17, 2016 01:51

Agnosticnixie: Jan 6, 2015

fits my needs posted:

I wonder if they will be a "hire Real Americans" clause?

In case you missed it even Clinton conceded and is acting like it was politics as usual in public. The whole relitigating the primaries poo poo is loving embarassing at this point.

# ? Nov 17, 2016 01:51

Leon Trotsky 2012: Aug 27, 2009; YOU CAN TRUST ME!*

_{*Israeli Government-affiliated poster}

Fojar38 posted:

Still an open question as to how you can have Keynesian policies while cutting taxes

Keynesian policies explicitly support tax cutting.

Keynesian Economics is just:

- Deficit Spend (through reduced revenue and increased spending) during recessions with expansionary monetary policy.
- Run a surplus (through increased revenues and decreased spending) during periods of large growth.

# ? Nov 17, 2016 01:52

twistedmentat: Nov 21, 2003; Its my party
and I'll die if
I want to

Party Plane Jones posted:

Trump doesn't actually own construction or engineering, so unless each construction worker is being solely in Trump Brand Steak Rations effectively nil.

He probably owes the mob a lot so, Luciano and Costello Totally Legit Construction Co. will get a lot of contracts.

# ? Nov 17, 2016 01:54

pigz: Jul 12, 2004; Nearly as overlooked as Joe Mauer

Condiv posted:

a trillion in infrastructure spending doesn't really conflict with demoratic party ideals so why block it?

For plenty of reasons.
1) Infrastructure where.
2) Which private companies get these contracts? Democrats woudl likely either like to have the government send the money directly (for stimulus purposes) or at least require certain amounts for minority and women owned companies, and maybe say hwo much people are paid etc. Plenty of social opportunity here the republicans won't be interested int.
3) How will it be payed for. Trump (i believe) wants to use a 10% repatriation tax on businesses bringing money back into the US.

That's just a few off the top of my head.

# ? Nov 17, 2016 01:55

Leon Trotsky 2012: Aug 27, 2009; YOU CAN TRUST ME!*

_{*Israeli Government-affiliated poster}

Condiv posted:

he said he's gonna work with trump on stuff like improving infrastructure, etc. and will raise hell if trump doesn't keep his campaign promises

a good strategy imo

Nah.

quote:

Charles Schumer and Nancy Pelosi Have a Plan to Make President Trump Popular

n the disorienting wake of Donald Trump�s election, Democrats in Congress grasped for some normality. To them � being Democrats reared for decades in a lawmaking culture � this meant some reassurance that they would participate in legislation. They quickly settled on Trump�s proposal for infrastructure spending as a promising venue through which they could trade cooperation for policy leverage. Charles Schumer, the incoming Senate minority leader, sounded excited about the prospect of passing a bill he has worked for years to enact without success. �As President-elect Trump indicated last night, investing in infrastructure is an important priority of his,� announced Nancy Pelosi. �We can work together to quickly pass a robust infrastructure jobs bill.�

How and where to cooperate with Trump presents many dilemmas for the opposition, pitting the Democrats� self-interest against the need to safeguard the welfare of the country�s political institutions. There are certainly venues where Americans alarmed by the incoming president ought to consider working with him for the sake of preserving the welfare of the country. But infrastructure is not one of those dilemmas. Supporting a Trumpian infrastructure bill would be to cooperate with the subversion of American government and an act of political self-sabotage. It is an idea so insanely bad it disturbingly suggests the party utterly fails to grasp the challenge before it, or the way out.

It would make sense that Trump�s election would enable the passage of a large infrastructure plan if he were replacing a president who opposed such a plan. This is not the case. Obama spent years pleading publicly and privately with the Republicans to support a national infrastructure bank. They blocked it on the purported grounds of affordability. To the extent they are willing to support infrastructure spending under Trump, or at least stand aside, it is a continuation of a pattern dating back to Reagan, in which Republicans toggle between wild expansionary fiscal policy under Republican presidents and brutal contractionary policy under Democratic ones.

Republicans blew up the deficit under Ronald Reagan, then fomented hysterical warnings of insolvency under Bill Clinton. When Clinton�s policies structurally balanced the budget, they unbalanced it with massive tax cuts, a military and security buildup, and a prescription drug benefit, all entirely debt-financed. When the first signs of recession appeared in early 2008, Republicans did support a Keynesian stimulus bill. As Obama entered office, the seeming mild recession that had spurred both parties to action a year before had spiraled into a bottomless crisis unlike any in memory. But at the moment the justification for Keynesian stimulus had become stronger than at any time in the previous 80 years, Republicans embraced austerity, insisting temporary deficit spending would worsen the economy. They held to that stance � with the exception of tax cuts for the rich, which they support regardless of circumstance � throughout Obama�s presidency, which is why they blocked infrastructure spending despite its appeal to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business groups.

The cycle has been repeated enough times that careful observers simply assume that the GOP will immediately flip from debt hysteria to debt mania. House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy told reporters today he still �cares� about the debt, but has realized that economic growth is a priority that will help resolve it � a realization that somehow dawned in the immediate aftermath of the election after eluding him throughout Obama�s two terms. This is a major reason the stock market has taken Trump�s election with such equanimity: The government is no longer held hostage by an opposition party committed to tight fiscal policy. Steven Blitz, chief economist at Pangea Market Advisory, told The Wall Street Journal that he had previously worried the economy would tip into recession, but that new debt-financed tax cuts and spending would allay such a scenario: �Now that Republicans are in control, there�s no concern about debt and deficits,� said Steven Blitz, chief economist at Pangea Market Advisory.

Again, this reversal has no relation to actual economic conditions. The unemployment rate is now half the level it was at the outset of Obama�s presidency, when Republicans opposed fiscal stimulus. For Democrats to cooperate unconditionally with this strategy is to institutionalize a political order in which Democratic presidents must be punished with contractionary policy while Republicans are rewarded with expansionary policy. Reasonable people can disagree about what level of national debt can be sustained, but the figure is finite. The political system seems to passively accept that America�s long-term debt should be allocated toward the goal of maximizing growth exclusively during Republican administrations. Why Democrats would find this system good for their country, let alone their party, is difficult to understand.

There is additional irony in the prospect of a Republican infrastructure plan, one with even more chilling implications for democratic governance. In addition to their opposition to Democratic Keynesianism, Republicans opposed Obama�s stimulus on the purported grounds that it contained �pork� and �crony capitalism.� As Michael Grunwald details in �The New New Deal,� his history of the stimulus, Obama�s administration was seized with terror of being attacked for boondoggles. It established a rigorous vetting mechanism to ensure no dollar would be misappropriated, and obligingly eliminated any spending program that could be attacked as wasteful. Republicans gleefully savaged spending plans for such infrastructure as resodding the National Mall � as if surrounding the Washington Monument with grass was an absurd indulgence � public swimming pools, and virtually anything else. The administration�s terror of waste did not stop the news media from framing the stimulus as largely an exercise in pork, or in deploying its resources to scour the country for examples of supposed waste. As Grunwald shows, no evidence of impropriety surfaced. As a political exercise, though, the campaign to lambaste the stimulus as corrupt payoffs to insiders was a success.

What makes this history relevant is not the implication Democrats should be driven by revenge or to replicate the Republican strategy. Indeed, low levels of routine pork-barrelling ought to be considered at worst a third-tier problem. The issue is that Trump is actually proposing to invite unprecedented levels of corruption into government. Trump�s high potential for corruption involves the interplay of two different rejections of political norms. First, unlike every other presidential candidate in modern history, he has refused to disclose his tax returns, so his financial interests remain opaque. Second, he will continue to hold his interests in office rather than retreat into passive investment. Indeed, his branding business is so intricately connected to his name, which will be enhanced immeasurably through his standing as president, that he will garner enormous personal profits even if he and his family govern in a completely above-board fashion.

But that is a highly optimistic scenario given Trump�s history. He has gravitated toward business dealings with organized criminals both in the United States and abroad. His �foundation� was a cesspool of self-dealing, and he is facing trial for fraud. Business lobbyists could literally give Trump or his children stock in return for favorable treatment, and the public would have no way of knowing.

Yesterday, Trump�s close adviser and rumored cabinet official Rudy Giuliani gave an interview to Jake Tapper about the potential conflict of interest. His defense made it clear how willing the new administration is to shred any semblance of public ethics. Asked by Tapper about the presidential tradition of placing his assets in a blind trust, Giuliani replied (correctly) that a blind trust would do no good if Trump�s branding business continued, since he knows its assets, and only selling off the entire company would do. But Giuliani insisted that such a drastic step would be unfair to Trump�s offspring: �Put his children out of work, they�d have to go start a whole new business, that would set up a whole set of new problems.� The premise that Trump�s children could not find jobs that did not involve selling their father�s name, and that averting the crisis of Trump-children unemployment should take precedence over averting massive corruption of the federal government is one Republicans probably do not relish having to defend.

Giuliani�s second defense was even more audacious. �You have to have some confidence in the integrity of the president. The man is an enormously wealthy man. I don�t think there�s any real fear or suspicion that he�s seeking to enrich himself by becoming president,� he laughed. �If he wanted to enrich himself, he wouldn�t have run for president.�

In reality, the world is replete with wealthy men who attained power and used it to enrich themselves. This is the very source of concern about Trump�s attack on the norms that prevent American presidents from using their power for self-enrichment. These norms exist precisely because we don�t assume a president is immune to temptation. Giuliani�s argument is that the very fact of Trump�s wealth refutes any suspicion of his motives and frees him from any obligation to demonstrate his integrity. His premise is banana republicanism.

At minimum, Democrats could insist that any dealing with Trump be conditioned upon him selling off his family business and placing the assets in a blind trust, and attaching a law requiring presidential candidates to disclose their tax returns. They now have the opportunity to simultaneously expose the hollow joke of Trump�s populist image and to defend vital protections against the subordination of the presidency to private gain. They seem ready to choose neither.

Congressional Republicans demonstrated the partisan advantage to be gained by unified opposition. As Mitch McConnell boasted, the public would hold the president and his party alone responsible for how they believed Washington was doing, and their estimation of how Washington was doing would be colored by the degree to which the two parties were getting along. If Democrats support elements of Trump�s agenda, it will make Trump more popular and lift the popularity of his party, enabling Republicans to entrench their majorities.

Giving Trump and his party such a valuable gift, and weakening Democrats� own chances for regaining power, is worth doing in the case of a vital humanitarian interest. But for some highways? And to give bipartisan cover to what may well have grants to contractors who will be giving kickbacks to Trump and his family? From the standpoint of Democrats like Pelosi and Schumer, the end of the Obama-era legislative boycott and a return to the old Washington, where they can sit with colleagues and hash out funding formulas and hold ribbon-cutting ceremonies, probably feels like sweet relief. They appear to be in the grips of a dangerous myopia.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/11/schumer-and-pelosi-have-a-plan-to-make-trump-popular.html

# ? Nov 17, 2016 01:56

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

pigz posted:

For plenty of reasons.
1) Infrastructure where.
2) Which private companies get these contracts? Democrats woudl likely either like to have the government send the money directly (for stimulus purposes) or at least require certain amounts for minority and women owned companies, and maybe say hwo much people are paid etc. Plenty of social opportunity here the republicans won't be interested int.
3) How will it be payed for. Trump (i believe) wants to use a 10% repatriation tax on businesses bringing money back into the US.

That's just a few off the top of my head.

yeah, but you block it when those issues come up, not straight out of the gate when it's some nebulous concept

# ? Nov 17, 2016 01:58

succ: Nov 11, 2016; by Cyrano4747

4chan and the Alt-Right dabbling in European politics now: https://www.reddit.com/r/Le_Pen/

# ? Nov 17, 2016 02:00

rscott: Dec 10, 2009

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

Nah.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/11/schumer-and-pelosi-have-a-plan-to-make-trump-popular.html

A Good Article

# ? Nov 17, 2016 02:01

Notorious R.I.M.: Jan 27, 2004; up to my ass in alligators

Notorious R.I.M. posted:

So can someone explain to my dumb naive rear end why the winning strategy to unfuck everything for the DNC is any more complicated than:

We pot commit to renewable energy sources and start an initiative to build wind, solar, bio, nuclear infrastructure in America's heartland. We give preferential treatment in job positions based on geographic locality to the infrastructure. We discard identity politics as a campaign strategy and trust our representatives to simply vote out hate whenever it shows up. Now, since the same side is pushing for economic and social justice, if you want to inject injustice on either side you can't say that you're actually just trying to get justice for the other front.

I just find it really confusing that we have a climate crisis and a job crisis and these are two puzzle pieces waiting to interlock but no one is doing it.

Ok it's time to self-refute this:

There are two parts of this argument and they are both wrong:
1) Renewable energy sources in rural areas will die a death of NIMBYism, especially nuclear. The problem is at the very least much more complicated than a simple obvious win.

2) "We discard identity politics as a campaign strategy" is advocating fascism.

Economic Justice without Social Justice is fascism controlled by capital elite. Advocating for it is advocating for unrestrained capitalism, both in the form of neoliberalism that ekes out just enough actual social justice to buy votes and in the form of unabashed supremacy based on forming trait-based coalitions of oppressor and oppressed that profit by having a majority. The left gave more of the former, the right gave more of the latter in this election. Both platforms are garbage because they lack actual social justice.

I think John Adams is a good example of what discarding identity politics lead to. He may go down in history as not having owned any slaves, but he was glad to pander to Virginia to secede so he could get his "economic justice." The west got their taxation and representation, and they also got to keep their slaves away from the motherland's mean laws that equate slavery to kidnapping.

# ? Nov 17, 2016 02:06

FlamingLiberal: Jan 18, 2009; Would you like to play a game?

rscott posted:

A Good Article

They're absolutely right that someone like Chuck Schumer will be more than willing to sell out for something dumb like a privatization-heavy infrastructure bill.

Considering these reports that the GOP is ready to go all-in on a sneaky Obamacare repeal through reconciliation that would allow them to avoid the worst of the fallout until after the midterms, it's not exactly good that you have an empty suit like Schumer in charge of the opposition. Warren is the perfect person for this job but she won't get it because she doesn't play ball with Wall Street.

# ? Nov 17, 2016 02:07

Nebalebadingdong: Jun 30, 2005; i made a video game.
why not give it a try!?

I really don't understand this thread. If Trump actually tries to push his 6 weeks of paid leave for new mothers, we should try to stop him? :psyduck:

# ? Nov 17, 2016 02:07

Unormal: Nov 16, 2004; Mod sass? This evening?! But the cakes aren't ready! THE CAKES!; Fun Shoe

https://twitter.com/iyad_elbaghdadi/status/798789938892259328

# ? Nov 17, 2016 02:10

rscott: Dec 10, 2009

Nebalebadingdong posted:

I really don't understand this thread. If Trump actually tries to push his 6 weeks of paid leave for new mothers, we should try to stop him?

If it has a rider to defund Planned Parenthood absolutely

# ? Nov 17, 2016 02:11

Hollismason: Jun 30, 2007; An alright dude.

Inferior Third Season posted:

Trump doesn't know poo poo about economics. He just likes building large things so he can put his name on them. It's just happenstance that creating Trump Interstate Highway and all of the various Trump bridges and airports will be beneficial to the economy.

This

http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-yanis-varoufakis-economics-stimulus-left-wing-democrat-521841

[quote]

# ? Nov 17, 2016 02:13

Heck Yes! Loam!: Nov 15, 2004; a rich, friable soil containing a relatively equal mixture of sand and silt and a somewhat smaller proportion of clay.

Nebalebadingdong posted:

I really don't understand this thread. If Trump actually tries to push his 6 weeks of paid leave for new mothers, we should try to stop him?

If it is a clean bill that does just that then there's no way in hell the D's would oppose.

The reality is that it will be a bill that has some bread crumbs for women, while the meat of the bill will gut abortion rights, planned parenthood, mandate trans-vaginal ultrasounds, and likely other heinous poo poo.

# ? Nov 17, 2016 02:15

fits my needs: Jan 1, 2011; Grimey Drawer

Unormal posted:

https://twitter.com/iyad_elbaghdadi/status/798789938892259328

Well, can't exactly say he's wrong lmao. This loving election.

# ? Nov 17, 2016 02:15

Covok: May 27, 2013; Yet where is that woman now? Tell me, in what heave does she reside? None of them. Because no God bothered to listen or care. If that is what you think it means to be a God, then you and all your teachings are welcome to do as that poor women did. And vanish from these realms forever.

Unormal posted:

https://twitter.com/iyad_elbaghdadi/status/798789938892259328

We really are doomed to become the new Nazi Germany, aren't we? We are doomed to be forever shamed and have to wear the blood of innocents, aren't we?

All because people couldn't be assed to vote.

# ? Nov 17, 2016 02:16

Nebalebadingdong: Jun 30, 2005; i made a video game.
why not give it a try!?

Heck Yes! Loam! posted:

If it is a clean bill that does just that then there's no way in hell the D's would oppose.

The reality is that it will be a bill that has some bread crumbs for women, while the meat of the bill will gut abortion rights, planned parenthood, mandate trans-vaginal ultrasounds, and likely other heinous poo poo.

Then it would be opposed on those grounds. But I'm referring to this:

FactsAreUseless posted:

Because people need to send the message that it isn't okay to have someone like Donald Trump in the presidency. I know it's too late, because every single major Democrat has already rolled over and started normalizing Trump, but they're going to regret it.

...like come on.

# ? Nov 17, 2016 02:17

FactsAreUseless: Feb 16, 2011

Covok posted:

We really are doomed to become the new Nazi Germany, aren't we? We are doomed to be forever shamed and have to wear the blood of innocents, aren't we?

All because people couldn't be assed to vote.

Americans don't feel shame, so relax.

# ? Nov 17, 2016 02:18

FactsAreUseless: Feb 16, 2011

Nebalebadingdong posted:

...like come on.

Nope, I think preemptively opposing the racist, sexist, xenophobic, hate-filled rear end in a top hat with the white supremacist staff is a good thing. Sorry if I don't feel like giving that guy a chance.

# ? Nov 17, 2016 02:19

Stereotype: Apr 24, 2010; College Slice

Covok posted:

We really are doomed to become the new Nazi Germany, aren't we? We are doomed to be forever shamed and have to wear the blood of innocents, aren't we?

All because people couldn't be assed to vote.

All because 60 million people voted for an openly racist and admitted sexual assaulter who advocated fascism because they felt poor. Don't blame anyone except those who voted for Trump.

# ? Nov 17, 2016 02:19

Shimrra Jamaane: Aug 10, 2007; Obscure to all except those well-versed in Yuuzhan Vong lore.

Unormal posted:

https://twitter.com/iyad_elbaghdadi/status/798789938892259328

Pretty sure emergency powers can't be just granted all willy nilly like its loving Jar Jar Binks in the Galactic Senate.

# ? Nov 17, 2016 02:19

Seraphic Neoman: Jul 19, 2011

I'm

ing that there are still morons who are complaining about "CLINTON POTENTIAL TIES!!"

Like good loving god shut the gently caress up. It literally doesn't matter and the result is far, FAR worse.

# ? Nov 17, 2016 02:20

Nebalebadingdong: Jun 30, 2005; i made a video game.
why not give it a try!?

FactsAreUseless posted:

Nope, I think preemptively opposing the racist, sexist, xenophobic, hate-filled rear end in a top hat with the white supremacist staff is a good thing. Sorry if I don't feel like giving that guy a chance.

It is the Left's job to loving fight for people. jfc. Operating on the hypothetical situation in which trump pushes 6 weeks paid maternity leave with no strings, then you do it, and ask the stupid, useless dems why they got beat to the punch by orange hitler.

god drat

# ? Nov 17, 2016 02:21

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 6, 2024 17:46

Fojar38: Sep 2, 2011; Sorry I meant to say I hope that the police use maximum force and kill or maim a bunch of innocent people, thus paving a way for a proletarian uprising and socialist utopia

also here's a stupid take
---------------------------->

Shimrra Jamaane posted:

Pretty sure emergency powers can't be just granted all willy nilly like its loving Jar Jar Binks in the Galactic Senate.

Yeah Congress grants and revokes emergency powers, and this is so sacrosanct that it literally applies even in the aftermath of nuclear war.

# ? Nov 17, 2016 02:21

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > uspol november: as it turns out they could not stump the trump

«‹›594 »