|
Lightning Knight posted:It literally doesn't matter what the post mortem says we're going to control none of the government until 2024 bare minimum. I am not convinced 2020 is doomed. It's not completely impossible we might retake the Senate in 2018, although I wouldn't bet too mich more than a nickel on that one.
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 01:03 |
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Markets have actually been fine since the shock of the upset wore off. Prison and Drug stocks are way up obviously Trump has been pushing cross-border pharmaceutical importation, actually, so maybe that second group isn't as smart as they think they are!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2016 21:23
|
|
|
Oracle posted:You realize you just took Donald J Trump, serial liar, at his word. The man who changed his mind about WHO TO HAVE FOR VICE PRESIDENT because the last person to talk to him said no, choose Pence and he was like 'fine, whatever.' Let me have some hope about one of the weird little side issues he likes to repeat himself on, okay? That's as close as he will ever come to having an opinion beyond Trump Is The Best.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:I'm worried about Pence. He has the power to undo all the LGBT and women's rights advances made in the past few years, and nothing can stop him from it. I'm scared that we'll go back to the 80s and hate crimes will rise. Someone please tell me I'm wrong. As long as Ginsberg is on the bench we have a firewall against the very worst - the five justices that gave us mandatory gay marriage are still there.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
1-800-DOCTORB posted:My money is on Duckworth running. I laughed. 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Do you believe she's gonna make it eight more years? Eight is more than I really like to ponder but hey, maybe 2020 will work out!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2016 22:01
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Do you really have to ask? The Chinese media is as close to ecstatic as they ever get about the Trump win. Goodbye Asia pivot, goodbye TPP, hello the regional superpower status that is China's birthright.  Bonus round: maybe we get to see increased Chinese investment! Heck, maybe in those national parks! Two of my good buddies are Actual Party Members. Their immediate email response was basically "sucks to be a minority in America, but maybe we'll get to hang out more in the future now that our countries will carve up the Pacific and SE Asia between us as cordial imperial powers deserve.  "
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
negromancer posted:Well, if we join hands with Russia and China, we might get that one world government that the racists that voted against ironically enough. Ooh, I like this one. It's so beautifully dystopian.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
Doctor Butts posted:Democrats may or may not have a strong bench in the next election. Bad poo poo Trump and his cronies do may or may not have terrible effects in the long term and could realistically be overturned. The effect Trump will have on the Supreme Court, however, is something I feel will have very long lasting damage to the nation- and we'll be stuck with its legacy for generations. Maybe he'll gently caress up and give us Souter 2.0. 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
Pakled posted:Hell, I barely even care about the wall at this point. The rhetoric behind the wall has always been more damaging than the actual wall could possibly be. Stripped of that, at worst, it's a Keynesian boondoggle whose funds would be more efficiently applied to an actual infrastructure project. I called it a useless Keynesian boondoggle, in those words, first.  Although I think you helped defend my narrow position on the topic? So
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2016 23:47
|
|
|
negromancer posted:My case is made. I know jizztrumpets like yourself aren't going to stop your people from lynching me, because you won't even confront them in your life. My own relatives, at least, are open to pushback about their individual attitudes. Not that it stops them from voting Republican.  But they can be trained to not be jerks in person.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
DACK FAYDEN posted:Sure, but if that productive work won't pass because "we don't want big government doing X" but the wall will pass because "we want a wall", then gently caress it, build the wall. Useless Keynesian boondoggle is better than no spending at all. 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2016 23:00
|
|
|
Glazier posted:People need to remember 2004, when the last thousand years of GOP darkness lasted all of two years and that was when half the party didn't hate the President. My dream is that Donald Trump listens to a Huey Long audiobook and either drags the GOP kicking and screaming into social democracy, or burns the whole rotten edifice of the party to the ground in the ensuing internal war. It's not a very likely dream, but it's not COMPLETELY nuts.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2016 23:12
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Hillary ran on an economic platform that was very acceptable to Goldman Sachs and was very very careful not to expound on any position other than that because she believes finance is and should continue to be the supreme force in american politics. Serious question: what would it have taken for you to believe her sincerity on her leftish platform? What would she have had to do?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 03:33
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Also the guy who replaced Howard Dean as chair of the DNC and dismantled the 50-state strategy which was responsible for wins in 2006 and 2008. ... ...Okay, I might have to hand in my politics wonk card. Or at least submit myself to discipline and probationary standing. Edit: Kilroy, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you on the hypothetical alternate universe Hillary solution, but I am curious about the range of answers, seeing as what got done didn't work. I'm one of the people who was pretty enthusiastic to vote for Hillary, so I'm clearly not one of the people most qualified to weigh in on how to energize the disillusioned.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 03:41
|
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:Can the President even quit? Yeah, it's not like he's the Pope or something.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 04:43
|
|
|
fknlo posted:I've seen a lot of "how obvious it was that Hillary was going to lose if you'd get out of the echo chamber", but stuff like  Killer-of-Lawyers posted:Uhhhh... 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 04:51
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:This took longer than I thought it would God I've waffled about this post. The gentlemen arrested for the shooting, based on the police statement, are named "Steffon Marquise Corothers and Shamar Xavier Hunter". This doesn't really suggest anti-protest shooting to me, unless the police just arrested Usual Suspects (very possible) or we have found the legendary violent black Trump supporters. I mostly note this because I would much rather share the ten zillion Trumpist violent incidents over the next two months (or four years  ) than focus on ones that may be indeterminate.(It's also worth noting that the police being dickbags in this protest has been overshadowed by this incident.) Goatse James Bond fucked around with this message at 04:56 on Nov 13, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2016 04:53
|
|
|
HorseRenoir posted:not sure if this has been posted already but Harry Reid is endorsing Keith Ellison for DNC chair, too poo poo, that could be that. I am pleased.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
Mahoning posted:Hillary was literally bought and paid for by the very entity that is responsible for the rise in inequality the past 50 years. Nah.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 00:04
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:
They didn't, though? He was neither fined nor even formally reprimanded, the Obama administration basically went "it was an honest mistake and he won't make it again, right, Secretary Castro?"
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 00:34
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:On a technical question, what is the difference between sweat shop and slave labour? Wouldn't that be covered under something like (actual) Wage Slavery? Sweat shop laborers can theoretically quit, if they're really into the idea of dying of starvation. Or, in some cases, having their legs broken by moneylenders or something. One horrible thing about sweat shops is that they are often the employees' best option.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 01:28
|
|
|
I... That's... Good? I guess? Strap in, folks, because nobody has any idea what sort of ride this is going to be. Including, or especially, Donald.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 01:40
|
|
|
Al-Saqr posted:to be honest Obama is a super wet noodle who has illusions of nobility and 'fair play'. I doubt he has the kind of fire in his gut that he'll suddenly find after 8 years. I dunno, he had some words to say about Donald Trump's candidacy in the latter half of this election.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 06:08
|
|
|
Jack2142 posted:It would kill ~ 650,000 plus Americans who aren't in congress??? many of them beloved minorities who would have ostensibly voted for her. If it weren't for William Henry Harrison and Henry Clay I would be the descendant of the soon to be  At least Harrison got what he deserved for his perfidy.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 07:16
|
|
|
Glazier posted:In the face of imminent certain death why care how someone else deals with it? We are all dead within four years why not take some of them with us? They're always banging on about how they can't wait to go to heaven. 1) No, we are not all dead within four years, not even if "we" is lesbian Muslim undocumented transwomen. 2) This is a disgusting sentiment. If you feel the need to arm yourself for protection, that's your prerogative. If you do, please handle your firearm safely and try not to use it preemptively.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 08:46
|
|
|
Glazier posted:So I'm getting tone policed for dreading my upcoming extrajudicial murder. That sure makes me feel great! It is possible I misinterpreted. If "try to take some of them with us" was meant to refer to "utilize our second amendment rights to kill people actively attempting to kill us", I apologize for the misunderstanding. I hoped that my last sentence was somewhat clear on my general stance, which is to say: I do not particularly intend to judge whether someone feeling threatened is valid, and arming yourself is a valid solution to feeling threatened.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 08:56
|
|
|
Glazier posted:Thanks that is what I meant, I'm sorry if I wasn't clear enough.  It's been a rough week, I understand.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 09:03
|
|
|
a shameful boehner posted:"The true believers of Trump dont actually control the machinery" Yeah just two of 3 branches of government and a soon to be SCOTUS majority Okay. What do you expect to happen under a Trump presidency? If you have already made an effortpost on this in the appropriate parallel thread, please link.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 09:45
|
|
|
Glazier posted:I expect he will start with creating a civilian organization whose mission is to alert law enforcement when they suspect someone might be here illegally. Now he won't tell them to arm themselves but of course he can't stop them because of the second amendment. Eventually the mission will be expanded to Muslims, at that point it will be merged into government as the Homeland Security Force or something similar. At this time I am dubious of steps two, three, and four, but we will see what happens by May (and obviously anyone who feels at risk may well desire to prepare before then). Chomskyan: when were things rolled BACK to door-kicking-in in the modern era? I can actually think of one, maybe two example periods, but I am curious whether you come up with the same two and how close you feel they are to the Trump Timeline. (Spoiler alert: one of the sample cases I am thinking of applies to an obviously at risk group right now, maybe, if you stretch a bit) edit: sorry, just saw you posted Chomskyan, reasonably plausible argument that renders my query a LITTLE redundant although if you want to answer I would read it
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 10:06
|
|
|
DACK FAYDEN posted:Bullshit. Find me one vote that was switched by that that wouldn't have been lost to the Vague Miasma of Clinton Scandal anyway. If I absolutely had to pick one thing I find most infuriating about this election, it's that apparently spending twenty-five years trying to smear someone works even if there's little to no substance to it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 21:16
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Rudy is a crazy neo-conservative though. He is equally crazy on Iran and maybe slightly less crazy on Russia and Venezuela. I dunno, Bolton would be a complete loving disaster. This is all making me very curious what the behind the scenes politicking looks like in the Trump protocabinet.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2016 02:26
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:i agree. bernie losing the primary was his fault mostly. but losing that primary did not have anywhere near the catastrophic direct consequences as losing the general Yeah, this is pretty much the one "rigged primary" thing I am on board with. It even did a number on Martin O'Malley, fatally flawed though he was with minorities already.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:Thank god we have Obama to do what those horrible white people want so badly What are your objections to Obama's immigration policies? For extra credit, how do they differ from Bush's, and what do the comparative numbers look like when you control for the Obama administration's revisions to data reporting?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:occupy was flawed from the start because without any kind of hierarchy or fixed agenda it was just a contest to see who could be most passionate It was an anarchist experiment, more or less, on the theory that a movement without leaders could not be coopted by the establishment like, say, the Tea Party kinda was. Mission accomplished And it laid the groundwork and tested ideas for things like BLM, which is a similar decentralized model but has local leadership while retaining the same sort of constellations of affiliated groups.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:Really? What are my objections to Obama deporting more people than any other president? You're asking an immigrant this? I was more poking at a general ignorance of the nitpicky details, including, vitally, the numbers. When adjusted for the inclusion of border control his numbers look a lot like Bush's, but with a shift towards people with criminal records and here without families, and away from longtime residents and immigrants with family members here. I was hoping, ideally, for something like "he should be deporting zero non-criminals" or "minorities including immigrants are arrested and convicted at massively higher rates, therefore the criminal part is also bullshit" or even "free movement of labor helps counteract free movement of capital and therefore border controls themselves are bullshit".
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:Unfortunately "being co-opted by the establishment" is *success* in terms of a political movement. I'm not going to entirely disagree. Occupy constellation groups are still doing good local work, but the coopted Tea Party seized effective near control of the GOP levers of power and is a significant part of the Trumpist coalition. That's what you give up if you run with the Occupy model. Which reminds me, I need to see how Mr McKesson did in Baltimore.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2016 20:10
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:General ignorance of nitpick details? Those massive numbers of deportations that increased every year he was in office aren't even the whole picture. Sorry, I didn't mean your general ignorance, I meant the general ignorance of the general populace. I apparently came off as more abrasive than I intended overall too, my apologies. If you want to talk about the whole picture there may be some things I haven't heard at all.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:Don't forget that he's deporting literally hundreds of thousands of people every year back to their violent home countries. And immigration courts struck down his policy to not deport families and children lol  whatSee, a thing I missed!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 01:03 |
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:I didn't vote for trump in the general election 🙄 I can't remember who I voted for in the primary but it might have been Trump, because I was making my decision based on A) which vote was most likely to burn the GOP to the ground by extending the primary and B) who wasn't Ted Cruz. So it was either Trump or Kasich. Probably Kasich at that point.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2016 00:07
|
|