USPOL August: Quoth The Donald, "Arzy more."

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USPOL August: Quoth The Donald, "Arzy more."

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Ignatius M. Meen posted:

im guessing you arent religious or know anyone who is

It's an interesting bit of hand wringing from someone who has likely voted straight-ticket Republican since the late seventies, but on the other hand who loving cares what these assholes think anymore. I read it until I was all schadenfreuded out, then closed the tab.

# ¿ Aug 1, 2016 13:09

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 13, 2024 15:56

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

a shameful boehner posted:

Very, very briefly. I think a Democrat supermajority only existed for something like 9 months given vacancies that had to be filled in the Senate and prior to next elections in 2010. Also, Joe Lieberman is a human shitstain, never forget.

IIRC the Democrats only had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate for something like a month, which as you can imagine was required to pass anything of consequence.

# ¿ Aug 1, 2016 21:51

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

fishmech posted:

But it's also somewhat helpful that people generally overestimate how much damage nuclear war would do, as it keeps down the amount of people who actively support doing it.

sid meier's contribution to world diplomacy

# ¿ Aug 3, 2016 15:55

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

BI NOW GAY LATER posted:

*sucks air through teeth*

*hum-grunts loudly*

# ¿ Aug 3, 2016 16:00

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

I went to the atom bomb museum in Hiroshima this afternoon. It's pretty gut-wrenching. Well that's my atom bomb story.

# ¿ Aug 3, 2016 16:09

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Arrgytehpirate's opinion on the use of the atom bomb in WW2 is probably not all that well thought out by him personally, but it's not exactly an unusual opinion to have. Even a lot of Japanese are sympathetic to it, but honestly the way the Japanese relate to the atomic bombings is sort of weird anyway. At the very least it was a war crime in a war filled with war crimes. Where it lands on the scale of how bad a war crime is, I'm not going to bother posting here since who loving cares anyway - nowadays once nukes are in the air all belligerents have effectively lost. (And yes, that includes first-striking a nation without nuclear weapons since weakening the nuclear taboo is not worth any gain the attacking nation could hope to achieve, even from the standpoint of naked self-interest.)

# ¿ Aug 3, 2016 16:17

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

zoux posted:

"All right, Trump's gone too far with the scandals, with the gaffes, with the unfiltered comments to the press. Get Giuliani and Gingrich to fix it"

they're there because don can relate to them best as fellow terrible human beings, reince is the one actually delivering some kind of message

of course there is no way they're going to talk trump down and they've got nothing on him, or at least nothing that they have the balls to actually do, and trump knows it

trump will blow just enough smoke up reince's rear end in a top hat to shut him up until he can convince his staff to give him his twitter account back, then it's back to business as usual

# ¿ Aug 3, 2016 16:30

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Trabisnikof posted:

What has to be going through their heads as they chant "HATE WILL WIN" because I can't imagine a more disgusting and soul crushing moment than that.

They have to be thinking "I am on the side of hate and I want to be there." At least the racists usually pretend it isn't hate but fear or tradition or some poo poo. This is verbally affirming being on the side of hate.

hatred of unamerican liberal pussies, also minorities and women

# ¿ Aug 3, 2016 16:32

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

zoux posted:

I know what they're there for but if they are pinning their hopes on those two being able to appeal to the better angels of Donald Trump, good loving luck.

I don't think that's what they're trying to do - they're more like the recovering addicts at the intervention.

The comparison isn't entirely accurate because Newt and Rudy would still actually just be addicts, but that's the gist.

Anyway it's not going to work because Trump is going to hijack the intervention and get Newt and Rudy to turn on Reince.

# ¿ Aug 3, 2016 16:36

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

On the one hand it would be good if the GOP could become a functioning party again because I'm not keen on living in the one-party state, plus if they really implode completely it will just pull the Democrats to the right. However on the other hand if they're just going to go back to being the party built by Atwater and Rove then what was the loving point?

# ¿ Aug 3, 2016 16:42

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Why the gently caress did they ever kick out that dude as DNC chair anyway?

# ¿ Aug 4, 2016 06:55

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

"Hey this guy who became DNC chair and then we kicked some rear end in the 2006 midterms what do you reckon we should do with him? Fire him? Okay yeah let's fire him."

- establishment Dems, apparently

# ¿ Aug 4, 2016 06:56

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

is it possible to get a hangover from narcissistic supply?

maybe that explains it

# ¿ Aug 4, 2016 07:06

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

I think we're missing the main takeaway from this "Ready for Hillary" business which is that Riverside continues to be utter poo poo.

# ¿ Aug 4, 2016 11:24

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Iron Crowned posted:

So I was thinking about this earlier. Republicans should be able to read the writing on the wall and be resolved to 4 years of Abuela, why doesn't Hillary just start acting like she's vetting far-left judges for SCOTUS? I'd think that would get them to confirm Garland in a heartbeat.

Because that would hurt her chances of being elected President, not just because MAH GUNS or whatever but also because it might come of as presumptuous to various idiots in the electorate.

Frankly I hope Garland withdraws immediately after the election.

# ¿ Aug 4, 2016 12:48

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Cimber posted:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/ has it at Clinton:273, Trump:218 with 47 ties. Too loving close for comfort.

any map that has AZ as being more likely to go to the dems than OH and FL, and then VA as leans GOP, is total poo poo-tier and to be ignored

# ¿ Aug 4, 2016 14:01

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9FyP16nWT8
:qq:

why isn't donald trump taking advantage of the GOP electorate's gullibility with the usual bullshit and which I've spent my entire life cultivating? :qq:

Host is hilarious: "well at least no one is talking about Clinton" :sweatdrop:

# ¿ Aug 4, 2016 14:41

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Harrow posted:

I'm pretty desperate for Trump to get totally buried in EVs. If he loses narrowly, whether he tries to drag it out/sue over fraud/whatever, you can bet his movement is just going to be emboldened. Utterly stomping them won't completely cut it short, but it would make people more gun-shy about voting for the next white nationalist demagogue in the next Republican primary.

Nah they'll just do the "not a true conservative" shtick and double down in 2020 - they are literally too god damned old to know how to do anything else. The only question is if enough of them will be left by 2020 to elect David Duke as the GOP nominee.

# ¿ Aug 4, 2016 14:58

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Night10194 posted:

Also, a question: What's a Tracking Poll, exactly? As opposed to a normal poll?

My understanding of how it works is they just continuously poll, throwing out old results and replacing them with new ones. So those polls are always for the last week, or whatever the window is.

# ¿ Aug 4, 2016 14:59

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Harrow posted:

So, back to the Trump-style demagoguery instead of the old Tea Party, Cruz-style hyperconservative? My guess was that they'd fall back on the Cruz side of things (not necessarily Cruz himself, but a more-conservative-than-thou type like him).

I'm not sure the evangelicals can give the nom to Cruz. I think David Duke will make a go of it, although it remains anyone's guess whether he'll be allowed on the debate stage. Perhaps the CNN debates.

If he got the nom he might select Cruz as his running mate, and Cruz might even accept. The other way around would never happen tho.

# ¿ Aug 4, 2016 15:06

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

computer parts posted:

HW was apparently trailing Dukakis by a lot in the summer of 88. That took a really dumb tank shot to unseat him though.

it was mostly willie horton iirc

# ¿ Aug 4, 2016 15:13

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

zoux posted:

Tracking polls test the same sample over and over. For example, the LA Times tracking poll that gets so much attention because it consistently shows Trump with big leads, has a full sample of 3000 LVs and they call 400 of them randomly each day.

wait, really?

wouldn't always calling the same group gently caress up the results? eventually you're not polling LVs, you're polling LVs who have been called on the phone and asked who they're voting for about once a week for months

# ¿ Aug 4, 2016 15:19

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

Carter wasn't hated, he was just seen as ineffectual.

The change came with the unseating of the Reagan Dynasty by Clinton, and then the rise of radicalizing talk radio.

carter was hated after he caused the 2008 financial crisis and tarnished bush's legacy, whose presidency had been going great up to that point

# ¿ Aug 4, 2016 15:20

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

ReidRansom posted:

I guess this is why I work in rocks and mud instead of political consulting.

You're better off.

# ¿ Aug 4, 2016 15:39

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Mister Adequate posted:

* I know none of these are really likely, but that the Clinton campaign could realistically take a look at the map and say "Okay, we're taking some of our money and spending it in SC and Montana, we might not win but we'll make the other guys have to defend in those places, and who knows, maybe we WILL win!" is complete insanity. Georgia has only gone D once since 1980, Montana only once since the 70s, story's even more extreme with the Dakotas and Utah. Both of Wyoming's residents appear to be devoted Trumpees though. Again, I'm not predicting Clinton will sweep these states or even take more than maybe one, and even that is optimistic, but that they are even potentially places she can attack to make Trump spend resources on defense is totally bugfuck insane. Also Love Me's a bit of a wild card with Utah and who knows what happens there?

The Trump campaign is incapable of "playing defense". If she did these things she would do it unopposed while Trump holds rally after rally in NY and CA. The effect on the downticket could make it worthwhile, though.

# ¿ Aug 5, 2016 06:19

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

iospace posted:

You have to remember a non-trivial amount of these people believe that government helping others out is taking away from their ability to help others, and thus lessening them in the eyes of god.

Theoretical ability or actual ability? How many of these people actually volunteer or give to charity or do gently caress all other than screech at their TV and into my Facebook feed about all the people and things they hate?

# ¿ Aug 5, 2016 06:21

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

QuarkJets posted:

I love this clip. "It's not just that the media is biased, it's that (Trump) is giving them help and aid along the way!" Not even Fox News can maintain the idea that Trump's campaign is competently run.

They did say that the media is biased though, they just pointed out that Trump is "helping" them by doing all this outrageous poo poo. Which I guess the lamestream media is then biased for giving airtime to, or something. Also that the media loved him during the primary and are wrecking his poo poo now, which they think is also bias and that they aren't guilty of it besides doing exactly the same thing.

This clip is a good example of why everyone working at Fox News should be sent to go live on the surface of the Sun.

# ¿ Aug 5, 2016 12:34

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Crow Jane posted:

Just ask how much Trump's paying them

Nah that's just when you lean over and whisper that they're not paying you anything, but they are letting you live.

# ¿ Aug 5, 2016 16:07

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Dr. Angela Ziegler posted:

The Republican nominee for President has spent an entire week of his campaign feuding with a baby. A literal, not figurative, infant.

It may not seem like it but - and this is important - this is what is actually happening.

Not just that, but he appears to have lost the argument.

# ¿ Aug 6, 2016 04:29

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

greatn posted:

Snowden is no hero. He's a hypocrite. He's not even a whistleblower, whistleblowers go through channels.

If that's true then it seems quite trivial to create an organization which is impervious to any and all whistleblowing.

# ¿ Aug 6, 2016 15:31

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Bushiz posted:

Snowden's kind of a naive idiot for being surprised that the NSA was doing the thing it had repeatedly been doing throughout history but he acted correctly. Going through the "correct channels" would have resulted in getting stonewalled until he gave up and dumped the information, at which point he would have gotten the Chelsea Manning treatment.

Didn't he actually try to go through the correct channels initially, with exactly the result you describe?

# ¿ Aug 6, 2016 15:32

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

greatn posted:

If Snowden had any integrity at all he would be in jail. If he had a lot of integrity he'd be dead.

Oh, well I'm glad he doesn't have any integrity, then.

# ¿ Aug 6, 2016 15:52

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

I guess what I'm getting at here greatn is that if you suppose that the only valid whistleblowing on an organization which is breaking the law, is done through the channels set up within that lawbreaking organization by the people who run it, for the purpose of exposing the lawbreaking of the organization and the people running it... if in your mind that is the only valid way to blow the whistle on this poo poo and anything else is hypocritical or automatically treasonous or whatever, then holy gently caress you are a god-damned idiot.

# ¿ Aug 6, 2016 16:07

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Yes I am sure Snowden is sitting on a trove of Russian documents which conclusively prove the GRU is breaking Russian laws, and is holding off on releasing them only out of love for the Russian Federation. Clearly his situation in Russian as a pawn of Vladimir Putin is identical to that of when he was working as a contractor for the NSA.

# ¿ Aug 6, 2016 16:11

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Feinne posted:

On one hand Snowden was in a box with respect to his option surrounding the release of that information, on the other hand I can't spare even a drop of respect for him now that he's doing propaganda for Putin.

If you're so loving worried about all this freelance propaganda work he's doing for the Russians then how about supporting a deal whereby he can return to the US without having his brains blown out and dumped off a bridge somewhere?

# ¿ Aug 6, 2016 16:13

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

By golly I would admire Snowden for doing us all a huge favor in letting us know how our government is doing all this illegal spying on us, but gently caress that shithead for not getting himself killed while doing it. What a dick!

# ¿ Aug 6, 2016 16:16

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Stereotype posted:

Everyone who said this is a bad graph are wrong, it is a good graph.

It's a line plot that is nicely fit into a rectangular graphic without line breaks, it elegantly solves an issue with line plots and looks more interesting to boot.

It also draws a comparison between the American electorate and a human digestive tract, with the red states being, in a literal sense, shittier as they more reliably vote GOP.

It's a good graph.

# ¿ Aug 7, 2016 04:58

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

CelestialScribe posted:

Make light of this all you want. It's a possibility. If Wikileaks does in fact have something damaging, it's not ridiculous.

Yeah, it's a possibility, but even in the event that, for example, Wikileaks drops the HRC lesbian sex tape two days before the election, what you'd likely see is Hillary SuperPACs go negative on Trump with the fury of one thousand suns. And, since Trump has already forfeited a lot of airtime this election with Clinton basically running the table on it, there is not much he could do about it.

It is likely that Hillary's campaign are sitting on some Trump bombshells already, that they will not reveal until the final week of the election (or, if someone else uncovers them first, they might try to beat them to the punch if they find out about it in time).

I think this thread gives you too much poo poo. It is right to :derp:

about Trump merely from the fact that he is the GOP candidate and there is a non-zero chance of him being elected President. His Presidency could easily mean the end of modern civilization or permanently curtail its potential. Even a 1% chance of a win is too high.

Kilroy fucked around with this message at 07:33 on Aug 7, 2016

# ¿ Aug 7, 2016 07:30

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Dr. Arbitrary posted:

It was really weird how a guy who joined the Democratic party after 25 years in congress as an independent didn't magically transform half of the DNC apparatchik into Bernie supporters. Unfair.

It's not really about being fair to Bernie Sanders or not, but rather being fair to his supporters. That said, they are apparently getting on board with Hillary in greater numbers than Hillary supporters to Obama in 2008, so I guess they mostly don't mind too much :shrug:

# ¿ Aug 7, 2016 11:09

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 13, 2024 15:56

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Yeah if the Republicans in the Senate are happy to pretend that a President's term is three years for the purpose of SCOTUS, that's not too far from supposing that the President basically serves her term at the pleasure of Congress. They have little more than contempt for the institutions that gird our government and our society - I've no doubt they would stage a military coup if they thought they could get away with it. Impeachment is a given if the GOP holds the House at any point during her Presidency, which is to say, impeachment is a given, if she wins.

# ¿ Aug 7, 2016 15:29

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USPOL August: Quoth The Donald, "Arzy more."

«‹›4 »