|
Name Change posted:Trump is currently saying that he is not going to sign the (unenforceable) loyalty pledge to support the nominee and therefore not participate in the first debate (or likely any other). If I were Trump I would MST3K the debates on a livestream and massively outpace them in views.
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2023 22:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 07:24 |
|
|
Not participating could be Trump's biggest mistake. Most likely it will just make him more powerful.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2023 22:31
|
|
|
Jesus III posted:Wtf was that? His human lessons are not going well All I can think of is that scene from Arrested Development: "Stop... licking my hand, you horse's rear end!"
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2023 22:32
|
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:Nixon was a political genius, just ruthless and a psychiatric case study. He was also very funny. unfortunately the brain worms that led nixon to be those things also entirely precluded him from ever being anything but a republican
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2023 22:48
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Ron DeSantis - in his new more relatable and human form - is having his wife give interviews to stress his humility and compassion. Wow! When I was married and my wife had a seizure and couldn't legally drive for six months, I took her to and from and work every day and did all the driving. So I'm a hero. Can I run for president now?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2023 01:27
|
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:Nixon was a political genius, just ruthless and a psychiatric case study. He was also very funny. The main difference between Trump and Nixon is that Nixon and his people were much more capable at brazen corruption and evil. Trump would certainly like a dedicated group of hatchet men to intimidate or destroy anyone in his way. quote:In 1972 Anderson was the target of an assassination plot conceived by senior White House staff. Two Nixon administration conspirators admitted under oath that they plotted to poison Anderson on orders from senior White House aide Charles Colson.[24] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Anderson_(columnist) By comparison, Trump's solution for journalists he doesn't like is to have private tantrums and then keep talking to them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2023 02:17
|
|
|
Name Change posted:The main difference between Trump and Nixon is that Nixon and his people were much more capable at brazen corruption and evil. Trump would certainly like a dedicated group of hatchet men to intimidate or destroy anyone in his way. Roger Stone was one of Nixon's loyal hatchet men
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2023 02:41
|
|
|
Does Nixon ever strike anyone as a true believer? All I've ever figured is that if he had, like above poster said, been born to a democratic political family, he'd been a Mega Democrat crushing republicans well into the eighties.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2023 03:01
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:Does Nixon ever strike anyone as a true believer? All I've ever figured is that if he had, like above poster said, been born to a democratic political family, he'd been a Mega Democrat crushing republicans well into the eighties. Difficult to tell because by 68 the drinking had really taken its toll. There are definitely things be cared a lot about, mainly foreign policy and football. Domestic issues to him were just a way to shore up political support so he could do his little machinations. Obviously he could be ruthless in FP negotiations but going to China was quite the move. Be interesting if he hadn’t been septic during that television debate and managed to best Kennedy in 60.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2023 03:16
|
|
|
Yah, Nixon's only real focus was being aggressively anti Soviet which the Democrats had plenty of as well. Everything else was compromised in that pursuit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2023 03:28
|
|
|
nixon was veep during suez, did he disagree with eisenhower at the time?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2023 03:31
|
|
|
i say swears online posted:nixon was veep during suez, did he disagree with eisenhower at the time? Just a random Atlantic article, but quote:Britain and France eventually did withdraw from Egypt in response to mounting U.S. pressure. But even after the ceasefire, tensions between the United States and Britain continued to simmer, as evidenced by Eisenhower’s November 1956 snub of Eden and French Prime Minister Guy Mollet after having said he would meet with them. A month later, Vice President Richard Nixon irked Eden even more when he explicitly linked the Suez crisis to colonialism. “For the first time in history,” Nixon stated, “we have shown independence of Anglo-French policies towards Asia and Africa which seemed to us to reflect the colonial tradition. This declaration of independence has had an electrifying effect throughout the world.” Eden’s memoir sharply refuted this claim, insisting that “if the United States had to defend her treaty rights in the Panama Canal, she would not regard such action as colonialism.”
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2023 03:49
|
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:Be interesting if he hadn’t been septic during that television debate and managed to best Kennedy in 60. A President Nixon during the Cuban Missile Crisis might rate a bit more than just "interesting."
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2023 04:00
|
|
|
Imo he probably would have flat out invaded cuba. Edit: even Castro was astonished that Kennedy didn't invade. Cpt_Obvious fucked around with this message at 04:04 on Aug 11, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2023 04:01
|
|
|
From what I can tell, Nixon both publicly and privately supported Eisenhower and Dulles in 1956 and his position seems to have been particularly influenced by Dulles. He also expressed the sentiment (along with Dulles) that it wasn’t a domestic political liability since Jewish votes would go Democratic anyway.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2023 04:13
|
|
|
Nixon winning in 1960 would have been a pretty huge change. - Nixon would be Pres during the Cuban missile crisis. - No JFK starting civil rights and Johnson finishing it up/Democrats losing the south forever. - No JFK/LBJ means no Great Society/Medicare/Medicaid. Seems like every 20 years the U.S. has a Presidential election that seems really unimportant, but ends up being a dramatically huge moment. FDR broke everyone's brain and ended up getting a constitutional amendment passed by running for a 3rd term in 1940. Kennedy over Nixon in 1960. Nobody predicted what a massive change the Reagan revolution would end up being in 1980. 2000 was supposed to be a boring inconsequential election that instead lead to the Iraq War, Bush tax cuts, a conservative Supreme court majority, and Medicare Part D.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2023 04:36
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Nixon winning in 1960 would have been a pretty huge change. lmfao gently caress off with the numerology. fdr's 1940 win was not even his own career's most consequential election
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2023 04:53
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Ron DeSantis - in his new more relatable and human form - is having his wife give interviews to stress his humility and compassion. The last reboot of the day though? Didn't go as well as planned and staffers are ripping out RAM sticks trying to find the bad ones
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2023 09:45
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Wow! When I was married and my wife had a seizure and couldn't legally drive for six months, I took her to and from and work every day and did all the driving. So I'm a hero. Can I run for president now? Maybe. Did you pick up your wife's kids from school?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2023 12:46
|
|
|
DeSantis announces new campaign platform https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkazdm/iraq-banned-words-homosexuality-gender Florida Has Banned the Word ‘Homosexuality’ From Its Media quote:The words “homosexuality” and “gender” have been banned in Florida by its media and communications regulator, highlighting the worsening status of LGBTQ people in the country. Oh, wait. Sorry. This is in Iraq.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2023 13:07
|
|
|
i say swears online posted:lmfao gently caress off with the numerology. fdr's 1940 win was not even his own career's most consequential election That's not what numerology is, lol. That is just the linear measure of time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2023 14:04
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:That's not what numerology is, lol. That is just the linear measure of time. The linear measure of time part is factually true, but your assertion was that every N years an election takes on an importance that is not apparent at the time, which is magical thinking. (And your own thesis disproves itself handily since Trump was 16 years from Bush II's first term) Insofar as I am aware, anyway, if there are studies out there that discuss election cycles and even 20-year-intervals, I'm sure this thread would love to read them! Also if you haven't read  's Foucault's Pendulum, you should, it gives you insights into things like kiosk booths and car engines. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2023 14:09
|
|
|
Rappaport posted:if there are studies out there that discuss election cycles and even 20-year-intervals, I'm sure this thread would love to read them! the real conspiracy theory is that reagan broke the curse of the once-every-twenty-years presidential assassination by surviving his edit i guess the 1920 and 1940 slots just died in office i say swears online fucked around with this message at 14:47 on Aug 11, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2023 14:44
|
|
|
Bush didn't create the conservative Supreme Court majority, Nixon did (with an assist from conservative Democrats who blocked Johnson's nomination in his final year) it had been conservative since 1969. Bush simply continued the trend of replacing more moderate conservatives with far right social conservative Federalist Society picks, but that project wasn't completed under him either (see Obergefell, or Whole Women's Health). Trump finished the project when he replaced Kennedy with Brett Kavanaugh
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2023 14:48
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Nixon winning in 1960 would have been a pretty huge change. Aside from whatever may have happened with the Cuban Missile Crisis, I don’t think it’s that simple and you’re sort of relying on the Great Man fallacy. I’d argue most of the domestic policy could have probably happened in some form, albeit a lot of Great Society would be delayed until the next time there was a Democratic president with a workable majority, which could still be as early the mid to late 60s.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2023 14:52
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Bush didn't create the conservative Supreme Court majority, Nixon did (with an assist from conservative Democrats who blocked Johnson's nomination in his final year) it had been conservative since 1969. It had a majority of justices appointed by a Republican since the 1970's. But, those Republican appointments included people like Souter, Blackmun, and John Paul Stevens (who eventually became liberal bloc leaders on the court). They didn't get a full 5-vote majority of extremely conservative justices until the GWB-era. yronic heroism posted:Aside from whatever may have happened with the Cuban Missile Crisis, I don’t think it’s that simple and you’re sort of relying on the Great Man fallacy. I’d argue most of the domestic policy could have probably happened in some form, albeit a lot of Great Society would be delayed until the next time there was a Democratic president with a workable majority, which could still be as early the mid to late 60s. Yeah, obviously I don't mean that civil rights would never happen if Kennedy wasn't elected. Just that they wouldn't have happened at the same time or the same way.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2023 14:59
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:It had a majority of justices appointed by a Republican since the 1970's. But, those Republican appointments included people like Souter, Blackmun, and John Paul Stevens (who eventually became liberal bloc leaders on the court). They didn't get a full 5-vote majority of extremely conservative justices until the GWB-era.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2023 15:09
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:That would be Trump then because the Roberts court from the GWB era still upheld Roe and wrote Obergefell since Kennedy joined the liberal bloc on social issues Roberts gutted the VRA, upended 200 years of gun laws, dramatically scaled back the administrative state/regulatory agencies, allowed a lot of "religious freedom" arguments to eat away at those social issues, and prevented the federal government from compelling states to make Medicaid policy changes by conditioning money in the Obamacare case. Those are all precedents that previous courts, even conservative courts, refused to touch. I think it is pretty fair to call him a conservative justice in a way that John Paul Stevens or Blackmun (who was appointed by a Republican, but was one of the most liberal justices in modern history) was not.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2023 15:18
|
|
|
At this point you're just drawing a bullseye around the bulletholes to make your numerology true. All of the conservative courts have written major decisions and the rolling back of liberal victories has been a continuous process, and John Roberts' appointment isn't the best place to draw the line. Also he was appointed in Bush's second term so it wasn't even the 2000 election that determined that anyway (also the 2000 election itself was decided by...the Rehnquist court installed by Reagan and Bush 1). If it had gone the other way a different Republican could well have won in 2004 and he would have appointed Roberts or someone like him anyway. Or Kerry could have won in 2004 etc
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2023 15:29
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:At this point you're just drawing a bullseye around the bulletholes to make your numerology true. All of the conservative courts have written major decisions and the rolling back of liberal victories has been a continuous process, and John Roberts' appointment isn't the best place to draw the line. What does the 20 year thing have to do with how conservative Blackmun is vs. Roberts? I don't think it is a hot take that the Roberts court is the most conservative Supreme Court in modern history and that for a long time being appointed by a Republican (like Stevens, Blackmun, or Souter) did not necessarily equal "very conservative judicial philosophy."
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2023 15:37
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:What does the 20 year thing have to do with how conservative Blackmun is vs. Roberts? I don't think it is a hot take that the Roberts court is the most conservative Supreme Court in modern history and that for a long time being appointed by a Republican (like Stevens, Blackmun, or Souter) did not necessarily equal "very conservative judicial philosophy." Because your claim was that Bush created the conservative Supreme Court due to the 2000 election on some schedule of a crucial election happening every 20 years which isn't true no matter how you slice it. The court was conservative before Bush, it got more conservative after Bush, and it was the 2004 election which put him in a position to nominate Roberts anyway. He was just another step on the road, not a turning point, which was your original claim. If you want to move the goalposts to "Roberts is more conservative than Blackmun" then okay fine I agree with that proposition.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2023 16:12
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:It had a majority of justices appointed by a Republican since the 1970's. But, those Republican appointments included people like Souter, Blackmun, and John Paul Stevens (who eventually became liberal bloc leaders on the court). They didn't get a full 5-vote majority of extremely conservative justices until the GWB-era. Republicans have appointed 2/3 of the current Supreme Court in spite of only winning the popular vote twice in the last 35 years. Also, as of July 18, 2023, of the 179 Courts of Appeals judges, 91 were appointed by Republican presidents, compared to 81 by Democratic presidents. They also hosed Merrick Garland out of a hearing by just pretending he didn't loving exist. So what I'm saying is that the higher courts don't represent the overwhelming will of voters.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2023 01:31
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Nixon winning in 1960 would have been a pretty huge change. Nixon was a known quantity to Soviet leadership, unlike JFK who they thought they could push around. I don't think there would have been a Cuban missile crisis if Nixon won because the Soviet would have viewed it as too dangerous with him in power.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2023 05:36
|
|
|
Trump Plans to Skip G.O.P. Debate for Interview With Tucker Carlson https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/18/us/politics/trump-debate-tucker-carlson.html They should just say 'the people here are the only people eligible for the nomination' but they won't so it's basically just a junk debate
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2023 22:57
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Republicans have appointed 2/3 of the current Supreme Court in spite of only winning the popular vote twice in the last 35 years. Republican presidents have been in office for most of my years on this earth and only won the popular vote once since I left the womb Sometimes I think about this
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2023 16:35
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:Republican presidents have been in office for most of my years on this earth and only won the popular vote once since I left the womb 4 years of HW, plus 8 years of W, plus 4 of Trump is 16, 8 for Clinton and 8 for Obama is also 16. Even if you existed for a few months of Regan, just after the election, Biden has been president for a year and a half. It is striking how rarely Republicans have won the popular vote, and yet how much time they've been in office, but I don't think this particular statement works out, unless I'm missing something.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2023 09:10
|
|
|
Maybe Ho has a giant artificial womb that he returns to every time it looks like Republicans are about to win the popular vote. That sounds like a good idea to me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2023 09:36
|
|
|
Eiba posted:For some inexplicable reason I'm trying to work this out and its not adding up. You must have been born after November 8, 1988, when HW Bush won the popular vote against Dukakis, because W Bush also won the popular vote in 2004. Your problem is that you're thinking too old. There's a window of ~3 years between the end of Clinton and the beginning of Bush 2 where their statement is true.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2023 13:44
|
|
|
Do we actually have an idea of who is going to be at the debate? Are they enforcing the loyalty pledge? Every news article I'm reading has a different list of people. Kind of amazed there's no official roster just a few days out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2023 14:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 07:24 |
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:Nixon was a political genius, just ruthless and a psychiatric case study. He was also very funny. I am still floored, to this day, how much of the animus behind everything he did was motivated by just being looked down upon by established cocktail hour money people.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2023 14:59
|
|