|
empty whippet box posted:I told someone the other day(that I have known for 15 years) that I do not respect him because he is a republican and supports such heinous things. He got very offended and said that "you're the one saying you don't respect someone else because of a difference in opinion." As if to say I would be that way towards anyone who disagrees with me in any way. They just can't comprehend the idea that the things they're supporting are genuinely horrible and people will dislike them for supporting those things. That somehow makes them a martyr in their own eyes and the other people the bad guys for being mean about politics. mister rogers taught us that everyone is special, these people learned that THEY are special.
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 23:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 20:41 |
|
|
vincentpricesboner posted:Holy poo poo man, I think you might need to absorb less politics because it is seriously bringing you down. Thinking that a literal hundred million people are all demon braindead zealots is quite the take. There were zero good people who voted for Donald Trump. It is not an action that a good person undertakes. You don't have to spend minutes analyzing politics all your life, you need is five minutes googling his name or five seconds watching him speak. No person in the modern world, much less in America, lived in such a media blackout that they did not see or hear anything that would have caused a moral person to abstain from voting for him. They definitely have not missed it if they STILL support him. And I guess this is true: SchrodingersCat posted:Americans have largely been brainwashed to believe that politics are not that important Too bad it is. There is literally no better reason to hate someone then the fact that their vision of society and what they want it to be is a horrific nightmare, and that they have actively furthered that vision. Politics affects literally every aspect of your life that isn't a biological process and even extends it tendrils on many of those. And you tell me that I care about it too much? Gee, if other people did, maybe you wouldn't be dealing with this poo poo. vincentpricesboner posted:Just saying, I've had guys rush to my car as it crashed into a ditch and started smoking, that were wearing camo jackets and certainly didn't vote liberal, but quite obviously were moral people. Hell, look at the wave after wave of people that are donating their time,money or food to church food banks, they aren't all liberals. None of that makes someone a good or moral person. Helping someone in a car accident is like the bare minimum of societal responsibility and at least in my country it is actually a legal obligation unless you yourself are in danger. Food banks usually go to their local community - and I just mentioned being nice to your in-group does not make you automatically a good person. And no bad person does solely bad things. It is just that voting Donald Trump and supporting him is such a massive piece of poo poo thing to do with so many negative consequences to people who aren't you, that these people have to do a whole lot to atone for it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 23:47
|
|
|
you can just not respond to bait y'all
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 23:49
|
|
|
vincentpricesboner posted:Holy poo poo man, I think you might need to absorb less politics because it is seriously bringing you down. Thinking that a literal hundred million people are all demon braindead zealots is quite the take. Anyone who still supports Trump at this point is a bad person.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 23:51
|
|
|
vincentpricesboner posted:Holy poo poo man, I think you might need to absorb less politics because it is seriously bringing you down. Thinking that a literal hundred million people are all demon braindead zealots is quite the take. Being occasionally nice doesn't give you enough Morality Points to overcome voting for death camps
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 23:54
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:This is an Arby's "How am social obligations?" --Smartum Goons, 2019
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2019 00:01
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:There were zero good people who voted for Donald Trump. Have you ever shared your views with other people in person? Your family, friends? Maybe your counselor? It is not normal or healthy to think that a group of 100 million people are all evil. You can say (and probably be right) that they are more often less caring than group X, but saying they are all horrible is ridiculous. This is the same meme that people were using in the 60s of "trust no one over 40" which is ridiculous as well. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2019 00:56
|
|
|
vincentpricesboner posted:Have you ever shared your views with other people in person? Your family, friends? Maybe your counselor? It is not normal or healthy to think that a group of 100 million people are all evil. You can say (and probably be right) that they are more often less caring than group X, but saying they are all horrible is ridiculous. This is the same meme that people were using in the 60s of "trust no one over 40" which is ridiculous as well. Both of those things are true. Sure there are exceptions, but not enough to worry about
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2019 00:57
|
|
|
vincentpricesboner posted:Have you ever shared your views with other people in person? Your family, friends? Maybe your counselor? It is not normal or healthy to think that a group of 100 million people are all evil. You can say (and probably be right) that they are more often less caring than group X, but saying they are all horrible is ridiculous. This is the same meme that people were using in the 60s of "trust no one over 40" which is ridiculous as well. Where are you getting your numbers? 100,000,000 people didn't vote for Trump.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2019 01:11
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1208137095270862848
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2019 01:19
|
|
|
vincentpricesboner posted:Have you ever shared your views with other people in person? Your family, friends? Maybe your counselor? It is not normal or healthy to think that a group of 100 million people are all evil. You can say (and probably be right) that they are more often less caring than group X, but saying they are all horrible is ridiculous. This is the same meme that people were using in the 60s of "trust no one over 40" which is ridiculous as well. So is this a #notallchuds bit or more of a calmhitler thing?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2019 01:24
|
|
|
You know, serial killers and child molesters are also usually really good at being "nice" and "moral" people, except for the terrible crimes they commit. "Just because someone supports Trump doesn't mean they are a bad person" is an absolutely ludicrous thing to say or believe, it's you that is insane, not us.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2019 01:28
|
|
|
vincentpricesboner posted:Have you ever shared your views with other people in person? Your family, friends? Maybe your counselor? It is not normal or healthy to think that a group of 100 million people are all evil. You can say (and probably be right) that they are more often less caring than group X, but saying they are all horrible is ridiculous. This is the same meme that people were using in the 60s of "trust no one over 40" which is ridiculous as well. hours later you are continuing this derail that you yourself began. please stop. and the rest of you don't have to respond to the concern troll
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2019 01:46
|
|
|
vincentpricesboner posted:Have you ever shared your views with other people in person? Your family, friends? Maybe your counselor? It is not normal or healthy to think that a group of 100 million people are all evil. You can say (and probably be right) that they are more often less caring than group X, but saying they are all horrible is ridiculous. This is the same meme that people were using in the 60s of "trust no one over 40" which is ridiculous as well. There's a subset of every population that would become Nazis given the right circumstances. While there are people who aren't Trump supporters who would also become Nazis, every single Trump supporter would gladly become a Nazi.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2019 01:56
|
|
|
eke out posted:holy crap even machin is on board Someone light the McMagic signal
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2019 02:14
|
|
|
SHOAH NUFF posted:Why do we have any belief that any Trump official won’t lie their rear end off under oath, these subhumans will do anything, they have zero shame Hopefully we have receipts on their testimony even before they're called. If we do, and they lie under oath, we already know, and will produce evidence supporting, and they might get some happy congressional perjury fun time. If we don't call them just because we think they will lie, not much of that will happen. 5 people who lied to Congress, and what happened to them nbcnews.com/Nov. 29, 2018 E: We = us.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2019 02:25
|
|
|
'A hitch in that argument is the Senate’s own 1,500-page manual of rules of procedure, which declare that an impeachment trial can’t begin until the House names “impeachment managers” to deliver the case to the Senate. Though the Senate has the power to change that process, so far there’s been no effort or energy to do so. The remaining Senate procedures on the books spell out the conduct of the Senate trial once it begins. The House, which has its own 1,500-page manual, offers only limited answers about the process of sending articles to the Senate. Once the House adopts articles of impeachment, according to the manual, there is no timeframe for when it must name managers to formally notify the Senate. Typically, this is done in a resolution after the impeachment vote, which names the managers, informs the Senate and authorizes manager to begin preparing for trial.' Political game of chicken. Who will swerve aside before the polls with the faulty brakes mows them down.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2019 02:31
|
|
|
So I was talking to a buddy of mine about conversation that might actually come up about the impeachment in the coming days and weeks. Specifically about how Republicans seem to be shouting “the Ukrainians didn’t even know the money was held at the time of the phone call!“ as their primary defense, kind of like I heard more than once at work today. Well, we looked around and found some info for anybody who is interested in the rebuttal to that stupid conservative argument: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/03/world/europe/ukraine-impeachment-military-aid.html Basically... 1. Yes, Ukraine absolutely did know. They knew aid was being withheld in July when the phone call was made, according to Orlena Zerkal, former deputy minister of foreign affairs in Ukraine. 2. Ukraine knowing about a quid pro quo agreement at the time of the phone call is arguably an unnecessary component of the impeachable offense committed anyway (even though they knew), as “Ukraine knowing about the withholding during the phone call” wasn't a necessary component for Trump to halt aid until his demands were met. On the same day as the phone call, papers were signed to withhold the aid. Whether the Ukrainians were told about this before or after the phone call, the fact remains that Trump absolutely planned to halt aid until he got what he personally wanted. The phone call transcript simply revealed that there was a quid pro quo in progress at all. This impeachment trial does not hinge upon whether this quid pro quo specifically happened during this phone call or not. 3. William B Taylor, US diplomat in Kiev, testified that on Sept 1, before any of the aid money was sent to Ukraine, Ukraine was directly informed during a meeting with Mike Pence that they would specifically not get any aid money until Trump's demands for the Biden investigation was met, including a public announcement of said investigation. Ukraine already knew this, but this testament codifies one instance where it can be absolutely proven that they were notified. 4. Ukraine had every reason in the world to deny they knew about any quid pro quo because they are fully aware that Republicans control the Senate, which means if impeachment was to go through, Trump would likely be acquitted, which means his possible reelection, which means Ukraine doesn’t want to piss off a man who could easily cause them lots of trouble in the next 4-5 years. Basically, The point is that the entire Republican argument of “Ukraine didn’t even know about the quid pro quo at the time of the phone call” aside from being demonstrably false, doesn’t actually matter. Not only is it a lie, it is an irrelevant lie. The only reason it’s being propagated is because it’s a great sound byte. It sounds significant and important, like it’s something an innocent defendant’s lawyer would discover just in the nick of time and triumphantly shout out loud in open court during the big crime drama finale’s closing scene. Republicans want to believe Trump is innocent and this lie sounds like it lets him off the hook, so they immediately latch onto it as hard as they can. That’s the only reason you’re hearing people talk about it right now. The truth of course is that, as we all know, there absolutely was a quid pro quo and it occurred over quite a long time, beginning much earlier, and ending much later, than the phone call. You probably won’t change anybody’s mind by telling them this, but at least it is a very solid response to idiotic garbage that might be spewed at you over the next little while. GreatGreen fucked around with this message at 17:40 on Dec 21, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2019 02:32
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/ChrisMurphyCT/status/1208418143879794689 https://twitter.com/thedailybeast/status/1208396725498630144 https://twitter.com/ZachFB/status/1208263553825808384 eke out fucked around with this message at 17:26 on Dec 21, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2019 17:24
|
|
|
that's it! the 784th piece of evidence that blows this thing WIDE OPEN!
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2019 18:01
|
|
|
eke out posted:https://twitter.com/ChrisMurphyCT/status/1208418143879794689 How many complicit staffers can we charge? Next administration needs to appoint a serious investigator to turn over all these rocks and gently caress all of these revolting assholes. If they can sit Hillary down for 11 hours over some bullshit, then they can shove the objections up their rear end as the investigations gut the republican bench that was complicit with Trump's turbocrimes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2019 18:08
|
|
|
vincentpricesboner posted:Holy poo poo man, I think you might need to absorb less politics because it is seriously bringing you down. Thinking that a literal hundred million people are all demon braindead zealots is quite the take. 62 million people voted for Trump, which is 3 million less than voted for Clinton.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2019 18:29
|
|
|
If you have family members who are unrepentant trump supporters my suggestion to you is get them real drunk and read the wikipedia article on Felony Disenfranchisement
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2019 19:12
|
|
|
Not only did Ukraine know about the aid being held immediately, they knew BEFORE members of our own government had been made aware. During the questioning I remember it being mentioned that it shocked everyone how good the Ukranian intelligence community was for having info on that so early, before our own diplomats knew (which made us look even more like clowns who can't communicate internally). Don't underestimate the small bois.
StrangersInTheNight fucked around with this message at 19:17 on Dec 21, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2019 19:13
|
|
StrangersInTheNight posted:Not only did Ukraine know about the aid being held immediately, they knew BEFORE members of our own government had been made aware. During the questioning I remember it being mentioned that it shocked everyone how good the Ukranian intelligence community was. Don't underestimate the small bois. Poland routinely punched well above their weight in the Cold War. hosed with the Soviets quite a bit as well. Cuba managed some fantastic penetrations of the United States intelligence services.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2019 19:15
|
|
|
This is some classic Sun Tzu poo poo, don't underestimate your opponent just bc they are small or that very same lowered expectation gives them an opening
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2019 19:18
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:Cuba managed some fantastic penetrations of the United States intelligence services. This is not a large accomplishment. Read Legacy of Ashes if you want a good laugh. CIA has been failsons and shitlords from the beginning.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2019 19:43
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:Poland routinely punched well above their weight in the Cold War. hosed with the Soviets quite a bit as well. Cuba managed some fantastic penetrations of the United States intelligence services. Also in WW2. It was Polish intelligence that started the help of cracking of the Enigma code.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2019 19:47
|
|
|
The fact McConnell will rig the Senate trial as much as he can get away with puts the pro-trial folks in the unusual position of either arguing that the Republicans won't be able to get away with another partisan power grab, and/or the rigging will be so egregious it backfires on Republicans. But given McConnell has been adept at slowly strangling American democracy to death while getting the politically disengaged to blame both sides, I wouldn't expect that outcome. Overall I'm tilting against a trial, there's strong arguments on both sides, but the dead certain outcome, openly intended rigging and insufficient popularity of impeachment tip the balance a bit against it. Again if Dems indefinitely suspend the process though, they need to go extremely hard emphasizing McConnell's rigging the trial and corrupt open collusion with the defendant because the current MSM framing isn't capturing that. The argument impeachment will help Democrats retake the Senate seems incorrect, simply because the math isn't there due to impeachment not being popular enough. The basic problem is the states Democrats need to win are to the right of the nation, and impeachment is dead even in polling (according to 538's average). This just isn't good enough for Democrats. Retaking the Senate requires flipping 4 states, assuming Doug Jones loses and Trump is beaten, just to reach a zero-vote majority of 50. Only Gardner is likely to sweat an acquittal vote, but his is a must-win seat for Democrats they're ahead in anyways. It's plausible Collins could sweat it, but she already showed her true colors in the Kavanaugh vote as a bitter partisan. If being divisive in Maine were going to cost her, then a lot of that damage is already done. Impeachment will be underwater in Georgia, Iowa and Texas given it's tied nationwide. Impeachment won't help Dem odds in AZ or NC. If impeach and remove were at least 5 points more popular nationally, as popular as opening the inquiry was, I could go along with the argument. If Pelosi and Schumer are somehow able to pressure McConnell into reasonable rules, and somehow get that commitment in a form he can't backtrack and betray, I could support a trial.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2019 00:22
|
|
|
MSDOS KAPITAL posted:You should have just started acting like Trump around them. Bronze the gently caress out of your skin, do some bizarre poo poo with your hair that might actually involve exotic physics, make your mouth look like a flaccid rear end in a top hat all the time and your eyes look like your mouth, just jabber on and on about nonsense and tell obvious lies about how great you are, try to cultivate what we all assume is just the worst BO humanly possible and lord it over them, take your parents out to dinner and complain about how they're not paying enough of the bill then act really gracious when they pay a bit more and then immediately start complaining about the bill again, insist that your cousin that they like can't visit until we figure out what the hell is going on, etc etc. If I wanted to put something like this into action, after confirming they'd be okay if I acted like Trump, I'd say "oh phew, that's a relief" and then just started talking about my past marriages and divorces, my abortions, my affairs, my bankruptcies and fraud settlements, and asking for money to help pay for all of them. It'd be easier to pretend about stuff in the past than actually act like it, and with less risk of nietzchean mimicry of the Trump abyss
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2019 00:38
|
|
|
From a practical standpoint, how much of the fact that the House hasn't sent the articles over to the Debate yet is a realization of the fact that nothing in the Senate is going to get done before New Years anyway, and most members of Congress in both houses are focusing on last minute Christmad gifts they've forgotten to buy and how they can get away without eating Aunt Judy's terrible pie without hurting her feelings? Since even in the best case scenario it's not going to start for a few weeks, it's almost all benefit for Pelosi to hold onto it and harping about how McConnell is planning to get the fix in in the Senate, embarrassing him publically, making it uncomfortable for senators in bad seats, like Gardner and Collins who know that their opponents are going to jump on any irregularities, and trying to create a rift between McConnell and Trump, who wants a clear exoneration.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2019 01:02
|
|
|
Epicurius posted:harping about how McConnell is planning to get the fix in in the Senate, embarrassing him publicly I agree with you, but this is not possible. the one thing I admire McConnell for is his complete immunity to shame or embarrassment.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2019 01:07
|
|
|
Eregos posted:The fact McConnell will rig the Senate trial as much as he can get away with puts the pro-trial folks in the unusual position of either arguing that the Republicans won't be able to get away with another partisan power grab, and/or the rigging will be so egregious it backfires on Republicans. But given McConnell has been adept at slowly strangling American democracy to death while getting the politically disengaged to blame both sides, I wouldn't expect that outcome. Overall I'm tilting against a trial, there's strong arguments on both sides, but the dead certain outcome, openly intended rigging and insufficient popularity of impeachment tip the balance a bit against it. Again if Dems indefinitely suspend the process though, they need to go extremely hard emphasizing McConnell's rigging the trial and corrupt open collusion with the defendant because the current MSM framing isn't capturing that. The problem for McConnell is that calling witnesses is polling at like 70-30 in favor. His polling advantage will die if those witnesses testify, but scuttling the trial will also gently caress him.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2019 02:06
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:Where are you getting your numbers? 100,000,000 people didn't vote for Trump. There were 235,248,000 people eligible to vote in 2012. That numbers got to be over 250 million now. 40-42% support Trump, that's over 100 million.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2019 02:21
|
|
|
Epicurius posted:From a practical standpoint, how much of the fact that the House hasn't sent the articles over to the Debate yet is a realization of the fact that nothing in the Senate is going to get done before New Years anyway, and most members of Congress in both houses are focusing on last minute Christmad gifts they've forgotten to buy and how they can get away without eating Aunt Judy's terrible pie without hurting her feelings? On the other hand, the media is going to start itching for a new fight to cover, so I suspect we've got a week (maybe two if everyone's distracted with Christmas news) before the ~news cycle~ demands that they switch from the concept of a fair trial to the Republican framing of, "Democrats won't send over the charges because this is all a game to them!" If Dems somehow manage to turn this into good PR, good on 'em. I just don't think they can control the message very long.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2019 02:25
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:The problem for McConnell is that calling witnesses is polling at like 70-30 in favor. His polling advantage will die if those witnesses testify, but scuttling the trial will also gently caress him. Never count on a democracy undermining power grab by the GOP to turn public opinion against them. If it's already against them it's another matter. But if polling is with them they'll almost always get away with whatever it is. Is there polling evidence that scuttling the trial would be disapproved by more than like 55-45? Because I think that's about the minimum margin where it could possibly start to matter, assuming voters still care by November which they won't. This can work to Democrats' advantage though. Only well educated voters or politically engaged voters care about impeachment and/or investigations, but everyone cares about the issues. This is why it was wise for Democrats to run on the issues in 2018. They need time to do the same thing in 2020, which is why holding the articles a long time then going ahead with a trial anyway would be a terrible idea. A decision on whether to go ahead or indefinitely suspend should be made within a month. Republicans got away with an unpopular government shutdown in December 2013, and won big a year later simply by providing time to move past it. Trump being a terrible president across the board provides an embarrassment of riches for Democrats to attack on. They need to focus the campaign hard on the ways he's inarguably screwed the voting public. Eregos fucked around with this message at 02:31 on Dec 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2019 02:29
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:There were 235,248,000 people eligible to vote in 2012. That numbers got to be over 250 million now. The estimated number is around 250,056,000 in 2016, which is probably going to be 265 million in 2020. Of that only 138,847,000 or 55.7% actually voted in 2016. Trump got 62,984,828 votes or 46.1% compared to the 65,853,514 or 48.2% for Clinton. The polling numbers generally are of likely voters, so with Trump polling at 40-42%. With turnout likely higher this year than in the last several I assume it will be close to the percentage that we saw in 2008 which was the highest in almost 50 years at 58.2%. So for the sake of the argument lets say that turnout will be at 60%, which would be 159 million. 42% of that would be 66,780,000 which seems much more in line for what his numbers are in actuality.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2019 02:45
|
|
|
InsertPotPun posted:that's it! the 784th piece of evidence that blows this thing WIDE OPEN! Sometimes it only takes one bit of data to make one (purple state) person on the edge go, "that's it, I'm out". That person might lead to a domino effect. Not saying it will happen, just that it can. But dismiss away, because negative is more fun than positive. Or something. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2019 02:53
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:This is not a large accomplishment. Read Legacy of Ashes if you want a good laugh. Wasn't just the CIA.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2019 02:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 20:41 |
|
|
Pelosi should block impeachment trial until White House is forced to reveal all cnn.com/opiinion/December 21, 2019 'Let's call it the Pelosi Pause. There are no written rules governing the timetable for delivery of the House decision impeaching Donald Trump to the Senate, only custom. But then there were no written rules governing the timetable for a Senate decision on Barack Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland, only custom. If Speaker Nancy Pelosi follows Senator Mitch McConnell's playbook, Donald Trump will never stand trial in the Senate. From a Democratic perspective that outcome would be preferable to a show trial, where the conclusion is not just foreordained, but announced beforehand by the Majority Leader after consulting with White House counsel. It's perfect: a rigged trial of a President accused of plotting a rigged election. We can only assume that Senator McConnell will be winking at the camera when he takes the oath of impartiality, "so help me God".' .... "Let me propose an alternative course for Pelosi. Apprise McConnell that she will forward the impeachment recommendation as soon as the Supreme Court rules on the three cases currently pending in the lower courts concerning the president's refusal to provide the documents and witnesses requested by the House Intelligence Committee and the tax returns requested by the Ways and Means Committee. The Supreme Court has already agreed to take the latter case. Chief Justice John Roberts can be urged to accelerate the schedule in all three cases, and report the verdicts prior to the customary end of the Supreme Court session in June." ....
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2019 03:00
|
|