|
CubanMissile posted:edit: Especially funny since you know this guy is going to vote straight ticket R for any other candidate except for maybe, just maybe, the presidential candidate. Nah, he'll leave it blank. Like someone else already said, the moment anyone superficially palatable to the NeverTrumps gets the nod Fox will kick into overdrive to paint them as Turbo-Satan. Biden especially has enough public gaffs that they would have a field-day.
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 07:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 19:12 |
|
|
Skippy McPants posted:Nah, he'll leave it blank. Like someone else already said, the moment anyone superficially palatable to the NeverTrumps gets the nod Fox will kick into overdrive to paint them as Turbo-Satan. Biden especially has enough public gaffs that they would have a field-day. It's true. Every time my mom makes some excuse for Trump I go down the list of poo poo she said about him in the primaries and try remind her that R's will believe whatever they need to in order to continue voting for their team.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 07:48
|
|
|
Skippy McPants posted:Imagine being so insolated, so loving bubbled-up, that this is what you take for political resistance. frum is a neocon dipshit, he’s just a kristolesque #resistance darling
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 08:07
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/HeerJeet/status/1080279552377536512
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 08:08
|
|
|
I love this tweet because it’s a Republican describing a Republican voter and assuming that Democrats should in any way give a single gently caress what people like them think.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 08:12
|
|
|
Well she's not entirely wrong, that was Hillary's campaign strategy 
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 08:13
|
|
|
reminder: it didn't work good
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 08:13
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I love this tweet because it’s a Republican describing a Republican voter and assuming that Democrats should in any way give a single gently caress what people like them think. Won't someone please think of the crossover votes?!
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 08:18
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I love this tweet because it’s a Republican describing a Republican voter and assuming that Democrats should in any way give a single gently caress what people like them think. Describing a republican voter who probably did vote for Trump and is just ashamed to admit it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 08:34
|
|
|
Caros posted:Describing a republican voter who probably did vote for Trump and is just ashamed to admit it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 08:41
|
|
|
Tayter Swift posted:Honestly I think Trump will have a better chance in the 2020 general election if he has a couple GOP challengers to poo poo on during the primary. It's what he's best at, gives him some more rallies and debates to babble at, gets his base riled up and expands upon it. He was helped by the otherwise clown carnival of people trying to run in 2016 by being the most insane one of the lot, but then again, if its just like a few GOP people actively working together (feel free to laugh now) just to knock him out of the running it does have a shot. The thing is, conservatives are all crabs in a bucket. The more rich and sheltered they are, they more spoiled and entitled they'll feel to the presidency.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 08:53
|
|
|
InsertPotPun posted:On the bright side he's still 8fucking7 so he probably won't be around to vote for trump ion 2020 anyway. Don't be so sure. Old white people who had the luxury of converting their privilege into sound lifestyle choices can hang around forever.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 08:54
|
|
|
InsertPotPun posted:On the bright side he's still 8fucking7 so he probably won't be around to vote for trump ion 2020 anyway. You know that RGB is only 85, right? Old people live forever, is what I'm saying.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 08:56
|
|
|
teen witch posted:Uh, Kanye was insanely famous far before Kim came into his life. Sure. He didn’t have the kind of money that they have though, nor was he married into a wealthy family that likely doesn’t give a gently caress about real people.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 08:57
|
|
|
RGB exercises more than most people ever have and lives on to spite the vile whites of this country. Some 87 Trump voting gently caress likely guzzles down deep fried swill from Bojangles/Country Kitchen, screams every day about how the liberals aren't angry enough/not happy about something Trump's doing and they're so dang mean about it, sitting on their rear end 24/7.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 09:01
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I love this tweet because it’s a Republican describing a Republican voter and assuming that Democrats should in any way give a single gently caress what people like them think. Well, it's an oft-repeated refrain but it is true that the Democratic party in America frequently seems far more preoccupied with courting the mythical crossover voter than focusing on exciting the increasingly left-leaning demographics. Even so, what Cheri's describing isn't a crossover voter, it's a dyed-in-the-wool GOP hardliner who couldn't even bring himself to cast a vote against Trump the first time. The odds of an 87 year old neocon rear end in a top hat voting for a Democrat president are about the same as the odds of me winning the lottery right after I get struck by lightning.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 09:06
|
|
|
tehinternet posted:Sure. He didn’t have the kind of money that they have though, nor was he married into a wealthy family that likely doesn’t give a gently caress about real people. Kim wasn't worth significantly more than Kanye when they started dating. I think your second part is more right, he went from a Chicago multimillionaire to an LA Burbclave multi-millionaire and that family is particularly unmoored from reality.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 09:14
|
|
|
Caros posted:You know that RGB is only 85, right? Jesus, don't tempt fate posting poo poo like this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 09:21
|
|
|
Mantis42 posted:Jesus, don't tempt fate posting poo poo like this. That was my point!
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 09:21
|
|
|
Just in case anyone needs a reminder of why I say that Pelosi is really, really bad at messaging to people that her party needs to turn out to vote, here's a terrific example.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 09:23
|
|
|
Caros posted:You know that RGB is only 85, right? Crabtree posted:RGB exercises more than most people ever have Ruth Gader Binsburg
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 09:25
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Just in case anyone needs a reminder of why I say that Pelosi is really, really bad at messaging to people that her party needs to turn out to vote, here's a terrific example. You afraid of having to run on raising taxes on the rich? I never understood the opposition to pay go, gently caress the rich.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 09:43
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Just in case anyone needs a reminder of why I say that Pelosi is really, really bad at messaging to people that her party needs to turn out to vote, here's a terrific example. All this during a session where they'll mostly be passing symbolic bills anyway, with no chance of becoming law. Too chickenshit to bother with even the symbolism, if it means pissing off their donors. Can't wait to see all the reasons this joke of a House is going to give Democrats to go to the polls in two years.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 09:48
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Just in case anyone needs a reminder of why I say that Pelosi is really, really bad at messaging to people that her party needs to turn out to vote, here's a terrific example. I don't like PayGo at all, but I'm pretty curious what large group of voters you think this is going to be a messaging faux pas to
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 09:48
|
|
|
Skippy McPants posted:Imagine being so insolated, so loving bubbled-up, that this is what you take for political resistance. This seems like a flawed metaphor, as slapping someone in the face with a glove was a challenge to a duel. Pistols at dawn and the like.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 09:49
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:I don't like PayGo at all, but I'm pretty curious what large group of voters you think this is going to be a messaging faux pas to
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 09:55
|
|
|
MSDOS KAPITAL posted:Most people don't know about PAYGO and wouldn't give a poo poo if you explained it to them, but enough people are going to wonder why this House isn't even bothering with symbolic gestures, to make a difference at the polls. PAYGO ties their hands to do that for no loving reason at all other than to signal to billionaires that the Democrats still play ball. The Democrats are preferable to the GOP in the same way a punch to the gut is better than a kick in the balls. What policies does paygo prevent the Dems from passing. Any M4A bill will be passed with permanent spending, and almost anything else can be taken out of the DoD's hide and let the Army Corp of Engineers build it. After all, the military considers global warming to be the number one threat to the USA.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 10:02
|
|
|
Repeal the Trump tax cuts and you can pay for anything. Its still an asinine rule that puts Republican "Deficit spending is bad!!" messaging ahead of the content ahead of any bill
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 10:12
|
|
|
karthun posted:What policies does paygo prevent the Dems from passing. Any M4A bill will be passed with permanent spending, and almost anything else can be taken out of the DoD's hide and let the Army Corp of Engineers build it. After all, the military considers global warming to be the number one threat to the USA. Also it strikes me that the sort of Democrat with a hard-on for PAYGO isn't also the sort to also raise taxes on the rich. We shall see. Unoriginal Name posted:Its still an asinine rule that puts Republican "Deficit spending is bad!!" messaging ahead of the content ahead of any bill MSDOS KAPITAL fucked around with this message at 10:19 on Jan 2, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 10:15
|
|
|
Failed Imagineer posted:Ruth Gader Binsburg It is my curse,
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 10:16
|
|
|
Unoriginal Name posted:Repeal the Trump tax cuts and you can pay for anything. Its still an asinine rule that puts Republican "Deficit spending is bad!!" messaging ahead of the content ahead of any bill How does it put Republican messaging ahead of any content of the bill? Hint, gently caress the rich is one hell of a way to campaign. Same thing with the no taxes on 80% of the population, it send a message that the rich will pay more in taxes to provide the services that you want. Even better if you can push forward a bill that raises taxes on the top 20% while decreasing them on the bottom 80% while remaining budget neutral. gently caress the loving rich you loving coward.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 10:17
|
|
|
So many people on my Facebook are saying we need a moderate candidate instead of Elizabeth Warren because she's too polarizing and fringe-left. My half sister, who describes herself as "very liberal", was cheering the idea of a center-right candidate in 2020 to unite the political spectrum and bring civility back to politics. It's so defeatist and stupid that I can't bring myself to argue wih her. Decorum centrists are a lost cause.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 10:19
|
|
|
karthun posted:How does it put Republican messaging ahead of any content of the bill? Hint, gently caress the rich is one hell of a way to campaign. Same thing with the no taxes on 80% of the population, it send a message that the rich will pay more in taxes to provide the services that you want. Even better if you can push forward a bill that raises taxes on the top 20% while decreasing them on the bottom 80% while remaining budget neutral. gently caress the loving rich you loving coward.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 10:23
|
|
|
MSDOS KAPITAL posted:I guess it depends on whether they're doing the supermajority for tax increases thing, which is worse than PAYGO though I hate both. If they don't need a supermajority for tax increases then that opens things up a bit since if nothing else they can repeal the 2017 Tax Bill. It's still dumb as poo poo for them to go ahead and tie their hands like this for no loving reason at all. If no one gives a poo poo about PAYGO that's a very good reason not to do it, actually. Why? It wasn't a super-majority to raise taxes, it was s super-majority to raise taxes on the bottom 80%. You can structure bills to be budget neutral while taxing the rich to provide the services you want to provide. The rich have more then enough money to pay for all of the things we want.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 10:24
|
|
|
MSDOS KAPITAL posted:Okay and do you think they're going to actually do that? This is all signalling and what they're signalling is "don't worry, we're still fiscal conservatives," not "eat the rich." They're not going to be able to campaign on what you're talking about because they're not going to do any of those things. Yes, I think that there will be several bills that will pass the house raising taxes on the rich while providing services to the American people. Those bills are going to die in the Senate but hey, make the House Republicans vote against them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 10:26
|
|
|
Are they doing the supermajority thing too? Like I said I assumed it, but I haven't read a confirmation of it or anything. If so then LOL we're hosed. A Democratic House that does that poo poo might pass some unworkable symbolic poo poo over the next two years (though I doubt they'll do even that), but there is no way they'd do the same with the Senate and the Presidency, if they have it in two years. I'm looking at this as less of a "well what can they technically still do" thing and more about where is the center of gravity of the Democratic caucus in the House: what lessons have they learned over the last two years and from this recent election. If they're doing PAYGO and a supermajority for tax increases, then the answer that is looking to be much more like "gently caress all, except maybe say some progressive-sounding poo poo every once in a while, just enough to fool people like karthun without actually doing anything." Oh and I just remembered the climate change committee they're reconstituting has even less power than the one from ten years ago. The Democrats are a waste.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 10:36
|
|
|
Someone should post that “Biden been creepy video” once a day in the presidential primary thread where all mentions of him should also go.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 10:37
|
|
|
karthun posted:Why? It wasn't a super-majority to raise taxes, it was s super-majority to raise taxes on the bottom 80%. You can structure bills to be budget neutral while taxing the rich to provide the services you want to provide. The rich have more then enough money to pay for all of the things we want. The problem is a bill might incidentally raise taxes in a very minor way on the bottom 80%, or function like a tax. Buying into the whole "taxes are bad" thing is buying into Republican bullshit framing of reality. Taxes pay for needed goods and services. Yes, the rich should pay their fair share, i.e. far more than they do now, but it might also be necessary to raise taxes on everyone.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 10:38
|
|
|
A lot of the "decorum centrists" aren't even into decorum at all. What they really want is a return to the old status quo so that they can go back to ignoring politics entirely. They think politics is like sports or TV or books - a hobby that most people have only a cursory knowledge about and they get to feel superior to loser nerds who are way too into that kind of poo poo because they're so busy with real world problems like picking up little Bobby from karate practice. They're particularly susceptible to supporting lovely policies, so long as the effects are completely invisible to them. Nobody "feels" a tax cut for corporations, so they're okay. But they see poor people using food stamps, and they sometimes buy things that are not rice and beans, so that's a waste of taxpayer money. Global warming is also too abstract and big to waste effort on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 10:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 19:12 |
|
|
karthun posted:Why? It wasn't a super-majority to raise taxes, it was s super-majority to raise taxes on the bottom 80%. You can structure bills to be budget neutral while taxing the rich to provide the services you want to provide. The rich have more then enough money to pay for all of the things we want. Why not attach a RICH-FIRST rule, that requires taxes to come from the rich first if that is your priority? Hint: its not actually their priority
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 10:40
|
|