|
Trabisnikof posted:Is today a day of the week? Must be a mass shooting in America somewhere: "Sounded like an automatic weapon" lol no it wasn't. I'm anti-gun and also anti-stupid-gun-reporting and I hate this obsession with "automatic".
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2017 15:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 12:39 |
|
|
The Muppets On PCP posted:the brand is worth enough someone will keep it alive Newsweek died and came back pretty much unrelated to the original and has been real, REAL bad since it came back.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2017 18:39
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:You hosed it up, so... I don't think NK has given any sign that they intend to nuke Seoul?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2017 00:25
|
|
|
QuoProQuid posted:i have news on the future of the democratic party: this is so goodbad
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2017 04:16
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/stavvers/status/910199858207838209/photo/1
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2017 17:55
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Haha Kale shut the gently caress up. The deal that they totally made and actually happened, not something that was in the discussion stages at all
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2017 21:07
|
|
|
Condiv posted:they shouldn't be discussing dumb things like that with republicans though? In negotiations, you often put things on the table at some point that you do not ever intend to actually give for lots of reasons? Something being floated in a give and take means nothing at all.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2017 21:14
|
|
|
Condiv posted:uh no you don't. in negotiation you start at a position you don't expect to be able to reach and then give up on things you don't actually care about. bronze plans and more waivers are not something that dems should concede on You're assuming they wanted to actually reach an agreement, or that this wasn't part of a list of random ideas they sent out to make what they really wanted them to pick to sound more reasonable, or or or There's no indication that this was a serious concession given in full faith, and adding it to the pile of EVIDENCE is real dumb
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2017 21:22
|
|
|
Condiv posted:the negative outcome is the repubs take these concessions and then push for even further cuts or else they'll repeal ppaca you think that a significant enough voting block is concerned with what the Democrats are doing in negotiations that don't finish to steal blame on healthcare
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2017 21:26
|
|
|
Condiv posted:they shouldn't have advertised it as such then, cause it just makes it look like they're ok with cutting ppaca at this point instead of doing them any favors Again, there's a bajillion outside reasons to do it and never intend for it to actually go through. It could all be performative motions for McCain for all we know. Without it ever seriously being floated, nobody should care
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2017 21:30
|
|
|
Condiv posted:i think he was spooked at all the people cheering his death
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2017 21:33
|
|
|
Condiv posted:likewise, i think "mccain saw the dems' good faith and his heart grew three sizes that day" is very stupid that doesn't have to be part of it, that was a random aside I threw out, and I'm still not the one acting like political theater doesn't exist and that Democrats can only do what is true in their hearts
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2017 21:56
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:So a bunch of delusional people who watched the west wing too much? I have a secret for you, that show was never that popular. Liberals like them are a cancer and within then years they will be reduced to a few poli sci professors in college. Tons of people want bipartisanship - go watch the last SNL before the election, where Trump and Clinton "put away the nasty fighting" and just went and ran around New York. It isn't a thing among the politically informed, but it's a huge thing among the less informed population. Condiv posted:so why help the republicans at all? if the republicans are pissing everyone off then let them? quote:i thought centrists voted not republican cause they were turned off by republicans' racism (and rightfully so). are you saying centrists would flock to republicans if dems didn't compromise on everything with the repubs?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2017 22:02
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Because I actually know some of the less informed. THey want someone they can trust. Not some limp wristed person who at the first sign of trouble says they want to discus their problems and come to a decision or whatever horseshit. I suggest you stop watching SNL and the West Wing and talk to some real people. There are a lot of people who think "why don't we just get along". I also think they're stupid, but they exist and pretending that they don't is very silly. Also SNL isn't some extreme liberal bastion and their political content is hugely influential (much more than it should be) Condiv posted:yes, when schumer said that copper plans and expanded waivers were concessions he'd be willing to make. those things should definitely not happen, and saying that he's willing to make those concessions gives ideological ground to republicans on those issues quote:are we supposed to compromise to the right to attract them? that doesn't sound like a good idea considering this country has drifted so far right we have nazis marching in our streets
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2017 22:10
|
|
|
Condiv posted:mccain's not going to be fooled, i don't know why you think he would be. if he's honestly a moderate republican like he pretends to be, then the prospect of destroying healthcare in america should be enough to convince him to vote against this bill on its own, without the dems ceding ground on maintaining what modicum of healthcare ppaca currently provides. McCain does not give one poo poo about destroying healthcare Taerkar posted:Pointing out that they exist is not defending them.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2017 22:15
|
|
|
Condiv posted:i don't believe that. americans are getting more engaged with politics than they have been in a long time, and sending bad messages like schumer did hurts that enthusiasm
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2017 22:17
|
|
|
Condiv posted:then why do you think bullshit concessions are going to make him not want to destroy healthcare? because he actually cares about decorum and other dumb stuff he's the one man in his party who does, but you have to make him really really upset before he cares! Again, this isn't a theory I'm committed to, it's one a dozen reasons you might make an offer you never intend to go through with - but demonstrating to John Mccain that his party isn't interested in fixing things, only in passing a vote NO MATTER WHAT, actually pulls him farther away from voting yes on Graham-Cassidy or not, negotiations are extremely complex
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2017 22:18
|
|
|
Xae posted:Why are y'all dumb enough to try to engage in conversation with someone who has openly and repeatedly called for genociding people who aren't left enough? i don't know Condiv posted:so then what was the point? at all? why even have his spokesman make this dumb statement if no-one's paying attention? this has to be a joke at this point
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2017 22:22
|
|
|
Well, this is just the bad thread now
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2017 17:48
|
|
|
Majorian posted:It seems to me that gridlock would be the outcome, which is infinitely preferable to getting any significant portion of the Trump/GOP agenda passed into law. Again, I think you're still operating under the assumption that the Democrats can successfully appeal to voters by being the adults in the room. Recent history has kind of undermined that hypothesis, don't you think? Gridlock IS the plan, once we get past the reconciliation bill that the Democrats aren't strong enough to block. My proposal was that ONE of the things they might be doing is not targeting voters, but rather specifically targeting John McCain. I'm not sure that's what they're doing, but anything that secures his opposition to this new bill is good IF it was political theater only. They might also have been trying to give them 1% of their agenda in order to not have something apocalyptic like Graham-Cassidy passed. I'm not convinced that's what they're doing, either, and I'm also not convinced that's a very good plan. But if you're seriously staring down the barrel of one of the worst serious repeal proposals it might seem smart to dodge it at the time. theflyingorc fucked around with this message at 18:11 on Sep 21, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2017 18:05
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I mean, I acknowledge that that's a possibility, and I hope you're right. But look at how the Democrats in Congress have performed over the past decade or so. You can understand why people on the left might be bracing themselves for the Democratic leaders giving up too much in a vain attempt to appeal to Republican reason and better angels, right? Sure, but I don't think "things that don't actually happen" is a good place to go looking for it. G-C might still happen, and if it does then not diving on something more "in the middle" would have been a mistake. The opposite is also true, and it's part of why I'm glad that nothing came of the "bipartisan" push - because I don't THINK G-C will pass.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2017 18:23
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:- That's not how the game is played. That's like complaining why a team didn't win football because they had more yards than the other team. Trump campaigned heavily in swing states because he knew he needed those states to win. Hillary didn't. quote:
edit: This doesn't mean that she didn't pitch poorly to certain DEMOGRAPHICS of voters, which he also discussed. But "she didn't go to Michigan" is a really poor argument. As is "if Bernie had backed down, she'd be fine", as well. Silver gave that a 1. theflyingorc fucked around with this message at 18:31 on Sep 21, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2017 18:28
|
|
|
Inescapable Duck posted:Like, Trump could be best described as stumbling into victory in the Republican primaries and the general election basically by accident partly because his unfiltered horrible opinions resonated with enough people and included vague tidbits of hope to people who had none, and mostly because all of his opponents were amazingly incompetent hobgoblins who managed to squander massive campaign budgets, establishment and media support to lose massively. It's still crazy that basically any of the real contenders in the Republican Primary could have beaten Trump if they hadn't been splitting the "not actively cheering for the death of black people OUT LOUD" contingent among themselves. If it had just been Rubio V Trump or JEB V Trump or god forbid Cruz v Trump, I think he loses every time.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Well, but here's the flip-side of that: what if the Republicans didn't have a complete and utter moron as President? Without that variable, I think it's pretty likely that the ACA would be very dead by now.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2017 18:43
|
|
|
AriadneThread posted:it's amazing how the gop can be such a smoking disorganized mess when they supposedly have majority control in every branch and the the majority of state governments, if they were at all competent, they'd be lining us all up to go into their free-market death camps by now It's not their competence, it's that what they're proposing is obviously terrible to anyone who can think and they were depending on a D president to veto it so they didn't have to worry about promises they couldn't deliver on. Winning the presidency wasn't in their calculations. The only thing they've gotten was Gorsuch.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2017 18:45
|
|
|
AriadneThread posted:i don't understand how this is a response to what i said I'm not sure how well sports analogies work in this circumstance, because "the game" depends so much on persuasion of others. I can't really think of a good analogue without jumping into weird board game or videogame analogies and I'm not gonna be that guy. Then there's the question of what they're trying to achieve - each senator has a personal "I want to win elections" thing, and that's what they were REALLY going for - so they said things to win elections. They didn't say most of what they've said in order to get rid of Obamacare, they said things so that they would get elected again and again. theflyingorc fucked around with this message at 19:04 on Sep 21, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2017 19:02
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:failure to grasp the situation, Jaxyon. Trump got just about the same number of votes Mitt Romney got. Not huge amounts, but like 2% of the electorate or something
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
SKULL.GIF posted:Tiny changes, including ending voter suppression, would have gotten Hillary the Presidency but tiny changes do not award the Democrats control of Congress or even a majority of state legislatures and governors. With only tiny changes, 2016 would have been a devastating failure regardless of who won. quote:"Economic conservatism" pushes policy that directly oppresses people. If you are against oppression, then you must be against unregulated capitalism, because unregulated capitalism oppresses people. If you claim to be against oppression, and then turn around and approve policies that make the rich richer, then you are approving policy that oppresses the same people you claim to be helping.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2017 19:24
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:Maybe it's just a dumb idea but I feel like housing where it's a 4 story apartment, a family gets half a floor for roughly 2000sq ft would be a decent way to increase density and maintain a higher quality of living. For some reason the suburban American dream REQUIRES a yard I hate yards, they require lots of work.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2017 20:26
|
|
|
if it helps i don't understand what either of you are talking about
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2017 20:40
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:maybe because he says his superior and his policies work, doesn't mean he's superior and his policies will work you're both being insufferably smug fyi i mean i'm a person who knows nothing about housing policy and i cant' make heads or tails out of what you're saying because you're just both condescending towards the other without explaining much of what your actual thesis is
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2017 21:01
|
|
|
On Terra Firma posted:She got my number from a friend and asked if this was okay, and I referred her to another lender I know and trust. She didn't need to get pre-qualified or anything, she just needed to know that if she had a good credit score would she have to go with this program she was being sold by her agent. Turns out her agent and the loan officer have been running this operation where they get people to list their home with them, qualify them for sub-prime loans, and then tell them through the process how lucky they were that they could get such a good deal for them. All of this under the guise of needing to "look out for one another". This happens all the time. I don't know what could be done to fix it though. It sounds like the whole "Oh so what about black on black crime??" that conservatives trot out, but it's a growing problem that people are actively capitalizing on, especially now that a lot of people who bought 10 years ago are moving onto their next home. I think that you can avoid the racial implications of this by noting how often this happens in other communities, as well. True grifters are unscrupulous, and they LOVE to use the "we're in this together, don't trust anyone else" gambit. Sometimes it's minority-to-minority, a very common one is "Christian" businesses that exist only to dupe ignorant religious folk who think "I can trust this guy, he says he's a Christian." KM can correct me if she wants, because she certainly knows more, but this is what it SEEMED like was happening with attempts for outside influences to remove the city government of Detroit a few years ago. It could just be an outside perspective, but from the outside it looked like a corrupt government getting their house cleaned and leaning on the community with "these white folks don't get what it's like for you and me." If I'm wrong about that my apologies and I'd love to be corrected.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2017 21:18
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:read: making the law unable to be used in a racist capacity so that racist actors cannot exploit that phew. I mean, I'd love for that to happen, but good luck you definitely don't have to worry about getting that passed while the Dems have no control
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2017 21:33
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:do you often worry that the world is ending when the sun is setting most of the chatter lately has been about what Dems are doing RIGHT NOW, not "when they're in power again", so excuse me for thinking you're talking about the present moment also the firey chariot only returns each morning because of the fervent prayers I offer each night
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2017 21:43
|
|
|
Majorian posted:But that view of Clinton and the Democrats seems to only take part of the picture into account. There's a lot of other stuff on their record that's pretty awful. Shouldn't that also factor into it? stop
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2017 20:46
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:uh, didn't he torpedo the healthcare bill because it wasn't radical (bad) enough no
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2017 21:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 12:39 |
|
|
call to action posted:He should have done a recess appointment "I understand nothing at all", the post
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2017 05:38
|
|