|
FizFashizzle posted:What Trump has done through EO would obviously have not been done. The census wouldn't be a disaster, the ME wouldn't be devolving into whatever is happening there, the US is still in Paris Climate Accords, who knows what happens with TPP. Trump has managed to gently caress up a lot of serious poo poo. There's definitely a bright side to Trump being as lovely as he is partially because of just how ridiculously stupid and incompetent he is at it.
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 02:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 10:49 |
|
|
Doltos posted:It was insinuating that Bernie was shunned by the Dems for Hillary you dummy Yes, of course, motherfuckers [Bernie] that refuse to call themselves Democrats should totally get the party nomination and the party should have no say so, that makes sense [you loving retard]. [Added for clarity] ulmont fucked around with this message at 03:31 on Nov 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 02:31
|
|
|
oh boy...
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 02:32
|
|
|
ulmont posted:Yes, of course, motherfuckers that refuse to call themselves Democrats should totally get the party nomination and the party should have no say so, that makes sense. It was insinuating that Bernie was shunned by the Dems for Hillary you dummy
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 02:34
|
|
|
ulmont posted:Yes, of course, motherfuckers that refuse to call themselves Democrats should totally get the party nomination and the party should have no say so, that makes sense. He is right that the democrats are more interested in interparty dynamics them trying to beat the republicans.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 02:37
|
|
|
The democrats will punch left 10 times for every time they punch right.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 02:45
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Probably. But he'd be able to accomplish exactly jack poo poo with a Republican controlled Congress attacking him at every turn. We'd either have a split 8-person supreme court or a 9-person supreme court with Scalia replaced by a liberal judge. And if one of the very elderly left-leaning judges on the SC dies in the next three years, that difference will be amplified. Bear in mind all the incredibly important SC decisions that were 5-4 splits in the last decade or two; poo poo like the Bush presidency, Citizens United, etc. plus current cases like gerrymandering. These decisions shape the country for decades or sometimes centuries. We would also have radically different foreign policy, military leadership, a functional EPA, we wouldn't be reneging on signed international agreements, and so on. Trump hasn't accomplished all that much as President, legislatively, and any of his executive orders can be reversed by the next President. But the thinking that those are the main or only things that matter is a big mistake.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 02:47
|
|
|
Also this whole EO thing is a bad idea. Like Obama did it out of necessity because McConnell et al just decided to shut down the government for six years. It was the only way to maintain a functioning government, and Obama was more than willing to work with republicans on anything he could. But having some rear end in a top hat come in and just be able to undo huge swathes of what should be legislation kinda goes against the entire point of our slow rear end lovely government.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 02:49
|
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:There's no number 1 reason trump happened; there are dozens of reasons Wait is that what you got out of my statement? Really?
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 02:56
|
|
|
Blitz7x posted:I'm trying to emulate Brookstreet BBQ's if that makes sense. Kind of a creamier, cubed potatoes kind. Hell I throw some jalapeños in there if need be Your self imposed exile is going to prevent you from some of the best food (for example the best Vietnamese is all outside the beltway on Bellaire)
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 03:09
|
|
|
Amy Pole Her posted:Wait is that what you got out of my statement? Really? I do not feel any reason is the “main” reason for the 2016 election, no. I’m not sure what else I’m supposed to get from what you posted.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 03:09
|
|
|
The main reason is America is dumb as a bag of hammers
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 03:13
|
|
|
Lol https://twitter.com/juddlegum/status/934962030263656450
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 03:15
|
|
|
Doltos posted:It was insinuating that Bernie was shunned by the Dems for Hillary you dummy Yes, of course, motherfuckers [Bernie] that refuse to call themselves Democrats should totally get the party nomination and the party should have no say so, that makes sense [you loving retard]. [Added for clarity]
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 03:31
|
|
|
Populist candidate who ran under a party label because he's basically forced to in this country is shut down despite his popularity by the very system that people were lashing out against in the first place, then the establishment candidate loses to the other (nominally) populist candidate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 03:34
|
|
|
Political parties don't even have to hold primaries, right? In theory the party could just choose its candidates entirely without public input?
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 03:36
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Political parties don't even have to hold primaries, right? In theory the party could just choose its candidates entirely without public input? Yes but this tends to lead to 1968.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 03:49
|
|
|
Or 2016 
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 03:49
|
|
|
I don't think Trump is a nominal populist
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 03:50
|
|
|
White populist
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 03:53
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:I don't think Trump is a nominal populist He ran under the auspices of being a populist, and then dumb people were shocked it was bullshit
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 03:53
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:I don't think Trump is a nominal populist He's from the nativist type of populism. Essentially yes the people are getting hosed and leftist populists blame the rich and powerful for that. Nativists blame minorities, immigrants, women, etc.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 03:54
|
|
|
Intruder posted:He ran under the auspices of being a populist, and then dumb people were shocked it was bullshit The dumb people still trust him tho
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 03:55
|
|
|
Yeah Trump is not a "nominal populist" - he's a straight-up full-blown 100% populist. Populists are frequently full of poo poo and bullshit as leaders once elected; that doesn't make them not be populists.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 03:59
|
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:I do not feel any reason is the “main” reason for the 2016 election, no. Democrats inability to be honest with themselves - torpedoing Bernie for instance...
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 04:03
|
|
|
Trump is your outcast uncle who constantly posts racists memes all day turned into a politician. Edit: I still have a hard time believing Bernie would have won considering he was 3 million votes behind Hillary in the primaries.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 04:04
|
|
|
Intruder posted:Populist candidate who ran under a party label because he's basically forced to in this country is shut down despite his popularity by the very system that people were lashing out against in the first place, then the establishment candidate loses to the other (nominally) populist candidate. he lost by like 5 million votes though edit: like, clearly the better scenario would've been bernie just getting more votes and winning the primary but you can't ignore that he lost by a pretty huge margin. if you pull some tricks to give him the nomination there would be hillary people who are just as, if not more, hopping mad than the bernie people and they'd have a lot more of a legitimate grievance.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 04:09
|
|
|
The difference is that it was publicly known that the convention was in the bag for Hillary thanks to leaks
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 04:12
|
|
|
seiferguy posted:Trump is your outcast uncle who constantly posts racists memes all day turned into a politician. People keep saying this but it's not like Trump took the majority on the Republican side. The bog-standard stodgy conservative vote was juat spread out between a billion candidates. There are plenty of people who voted for Trump just because "I wanna political outsider" and it's not beyond reason that some of those would have gone for Sanders.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 04:13
|
|
|
ulmont posted:Yes, of course, motherfuckers [Bernie] that refuse to call themselves Democrats should totally get the party nomination and the party should have no say so, that makes sense [you loving retard]. You realize a variety of politicians don't adhere to the typical idea of democratic or republican in their respective parties ranging from a Bernie Sanders to a George W. Bush and that you're unnecessarily angry
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 04:22
|
|
|
Amy Pole Her posted:Democrats inability to be honest with themselves - torpedoing Bernie for instance... That's not a "democrats" problem as much as it is a problem with the DNC, but I understand. If we're talking specifically about the 2016 election, the DNC's treatment of Bernie, or their reluctance to flat out call for what 65% of the us population wants in free healthcare, or to make a bold statement against police violence, or debt forgiveness for student loans or whatever issue are all individual factors. But the 2016 election was so insanely close that every single thing that went wrong could have gone wrong and hillary would have won if like the weather was better in specific districts. It was just nuts. I think we're just arguing past one another though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 04:23
|
|
|
Things that happened and are not mutually exclusive: 1. The DNC/Democrats cleared the deck for Hilary in 2016 2. Bernie, a lifelong independent/socialist registered as a Democrat specifically to run in the Dem presidential primary 3. Bernie saw more success than expected due in part to a combination of widespread dissatisfaction among the electorate and his role as the only non-Hilary option 4. The DNC was not happy about these events and through a number of methods made it clear their preference was Hilary 5. Bernie lost the primary by many millions of votes My big gripe with the DNC is the first thing on that list. Clearing the deck is a bullshit non democratic move. Everything else that happened wasn't entirely surprising. Of course the DNC reacted badly to an outsider hijacking the process. Of course the Bernie supporters were pissed about it. These are all things that don't happen if the role of the DNC/Dem establishment is to support the people who win the primaries rather than selecting people based on backroom dealings and whoever has influence internally. No one wants an option forced on them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 04:25
|
|
|
Doltos posted:You realize a variety of politicians don't adhere to the typical idea of democratic or republican in their respective parties ranging from a Bernie Sanders to a George W. Bush and that you're unnecessarily angry GWB was the pure embodiment of the gop circa 2000: Pro deregulation evangelical with big business connections and a history with the CIA.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 04:27
|
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:GWB was the pure embodiment of the gop circa 2000: Pro deregulation evangelical with big business connections and a history with the CIA. He was a neo con which is why I said it. Sure the Republican party had been neoconservative for like 30 years before he came into office but it still slants away from traditional label of Republican
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 04:35
|
|
|
Doltos posted:He was a neo con which is why I said it. Sure the Republican party had been neoconservative for like 30 years before he came into office but it still slants away from traditional label of Republican Reagan was a neo-liberal
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 04:36
|
|
|
Intruder posted:The difference is that it was publicly known that the convention was in the bag for Hillary thanks to leaks   sure looks like someone got more votes to me this whole argument falls apart because the primary itself was a blowout. if you wanna see a close primary, this is a good example.  hillary got more votes (barely) but not enough delegates. had that been what happened in 2016 then we have a whole different story. but it didn't. so we dont. tl;dr: the 2016 democratic primary was not close by any stretch of the imagination axeil fucked around with this message at 04:42 on Nov 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 04:37
|
|
|
axeil posted:
To be fair, its not outrageous for the candidate that got the advantage in support and funding to get more votes. Hillary won the primary but the dnc clearly gave her more financial and media support.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 04:40
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:To be fair, its not outrageous for the candidate that got the advantage in support and funding to get more votes. Hillary won the primary but the dnc clearly gave her more financial and media support. oh i agree completely that the whole thing seemed unfair and that's kinda bs. however if people start suggesting things were rigged or close or any of that, it's hogwash. Relentlessboredomm posted:Things that happened and are not mutually exclusive: yeah the shadow primary being so overwhelmingly in one direction was a huge strategic error by the DNC. honestly, if beau biden hadn't died, joe biden probably runs and that splits the shadow primary group enough that other people would've been viable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 04:42
|
|
|
Good lord Mr Robot is dark as hell
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 04:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 10:49 |
|
|
It's a good thing that narrative doesn't affect the way people vote The DNC is at fault for even trying to rig it, whether or not it made a difference
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 04:43
|
|