Calibanibal posted:

Why not just make a "dems are good thread" and then it becomes probatable itt to criticize or complement democrats and leftists

Mustached Demon posted:

Tammy Duckworth 2020/24/28 whatever the gently caress one she wants.

Peachfart posted:

lol holy poo poo

'it is a good thing that we poo poo out poorly thought out legislation that nobody wants at an ever increasing rate'

The Muppets On PCP posted:

so?

Party Plane Jones posted:

https://twitter.com/LanaDelRaytheon/status/912490390736871424

R. Guyovich posted:

jesus loving? christ, people!

Heck Yes! Loam! posted:

man, look at them come out of the woodwork. Is there a signal or something, or do they use pheromones?

Let's try this. Are the benefits offered by Wapo, even after the supposed cuts, better or worse than what you personally have at your job?

And by the way, I never said cutting benefits was good, but i don't necessarily think it is as bad as you do.

My ideological purity.

Condiv posted:

twodot posted:

Is there a historical example of a society wide de-radicalization program that went well? I'm having difficulty imagining what it would look like.

QuoProQuid posted:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/936037588372283392

Sephyr posted:

As a foreigner who enjoys US history, 'Hamilton' loving baffles me. As Lindsay Ellis said on a review, I guess you need to make the first big hip-hop musical about the whitest poo poo ever.

Even so, "I was Washington's aide, elected my worst enemy to the White House, ruined my career over a silly affair, lost my son to a dumb duel then alsl died on a dumber duel: the musical" just feels...off. and I may be mistakenhere, but was Jefferson really that exuberant? He always felt like a borderline Asperger type to me.

Give me Thomas Payne: the musical, and then we are talking.

Majorian posted:

A lack of support from the voting public is not the problem; it's a lack of support from the Democratic establishment.

Cerebral Bore posted:

Why is JC acting as if he's got the slightest idea about who's electable and who's not?

RuanGacho posted:

Hail Church of Satan on Page 666

shrike82 posted:

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/02/13/immigration-visas-economics-216968

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

Yes, but there's additional context I would add to that.

The first is "no evidence of actual tampering": that doesn't mean there was no tampering, it just means we can't prove it (with publicly available information, anyway). Someone breaks into a house at night and then leaves; you can't figure out if anything's missing; that doesn't mean there wasn't a burglary, or that nothing was stolen, it just means you can't prove that something was stolen. Rather the reverse; the fact of the break-in is evidence of, at least, intent and attempt to rob, both of which are crimes in and of themselves regardless of whether or not anything was actually stolen. Even if we can't prove that the Russians did tamper with the election -- and that does not mean they didn't, it just means it hasn't yet been proven (publicly) -- we can prove they attempted to do so, and attempt to [crime] is also a crime.

Past that, there's a huge amount of evidence that most American electronic voting machines are *extremely* vulnerable -- just google "diebold hack" and you'll get a hundred different articles.
See, e.g.,

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/08/2016-elections-russia-hack-how-to-hack-an-election-in-seven-minutes-214144

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rigged-presidential-elections-hackers-demonstrate-voting-threat-old-machines/

Many of those machines are so vulnerable that there would not necessarily *be* any trail to find afterwards.

Given all that, it seems extraordinarily naive to just rest on "well, we can't prove the election results were tampered with". Maybe not, but there's definitely enough evidence to conclude that tampering probably happened. If you see someone in a mask break into a house carrying a gasoline tank, and then you see smoke pouring out of said house, you don't need camera footage of the match being struck to draw the reasonable inference that someone set the house on fire, even if you can't prove it (yet, at least).

All that said, there's also the Podesta / DNC hack, which is a separate incident and similarly criminal, and I don't think the facts of that are disputed at all, so I don't really need the election databases hack to make my case, they're just an extra data point in support.

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

World War One started because a random nutjob private citizen shot a hereditary monarch, it wasn't even sparked by state action. America joined WW1 because Germany sent Mexico a telegram. "Act of War" if by that we mean "action after which war is the response", is not exactly a high standard to meet. IIn that sense, it's descriptive, not prescriptive.

Chomskyan posted:

https://twitter.com/CNN/status/968082224863236096

The Glumslinger posted:

https://twitter.com/curaffairs/status/970382685574221831

Kilroy posted:

Wouldn't the Nazi just cut a deal to share power with the other far-right dickheads, or perhaps even co-opt that party entirely, and then implement most or all of the terrible policies you were hoping to avoid by voting for him?

I mean it's not like with leftists, OOCC: right-wingers tend to have no problem allying themselves with erstwhile enemies if it means they get to brutalize more people.

Democrazy posted:

That’s not what I said. What I said is that the KPD sided with the Nazis over the liberals with whom they were fighting, which they did, explicitly, and after the Nazis had already shown their brutality to their own people.


The actions of the SPD during the Spartacus revolt, while regrettable, are not quite equal to the Holocaust.

Office Pig posted:

https://twitter.com/davidaxelrod/status/982980607771848704?s=21

Office Pig posted:

https://twitter.com/JoyAnnReid/status/986401147962515457?s=20
A Bush died, time to whitewash the family.

Nonsense posted:

Also by Rachel Lu

http://theweek.com/articles/768185/americas-matriarch

WampaLord posted:

Based on the discussion in QQCS, I think the time for leftists being allowed to post in D&D is quickly drawing to a close:

Radish posted:

I think "kid concentration camp" was a bit too far beyond the pale for the Democrats to allow Manchin to be himself on and play Mr Neutral so there was some serious pressure applied in order to avoid the embarrassment of having a high ranking member on the wrong side of this (hence the delay in his support). Still at least the party is willing to be unanimous in this one so good on them for that.


Yeah. Any Republican that claims to be against Trump's ways, now is do or die time.

VitalSigns posted:

The criticisms I've seen so far are either untrue, or the same stuff that all Democrats do and often to a lesser extent that they do it.

He's not my hero but the only well-founded critique is "he said nice things about Assad", so if your position is any politician who ever supports a Bad Guy on the world stage must be shunned out of politics then okay I'm down let's get started on that

Condiv posted:

Indeed. Seems our conversation is done if “nice meltdown!” Is the best you’ve got left

Der Waffle Mous posted:

The whole point is "Dems Worse" shouldn't be a defense for Bernie's weird subconscious grandpa racism. It keeps being used to defend Bernie's weird subconscious grandpa racism. Why do you keep defending racism when its someone you like?

And no I work a goddamn graveyard shift I don't have no spite avatar money.

Condiv posted:

Not to say that holding bernie to account for having bad positions is a bad thing. That’s how people get him to change after all.

But when you reflexively defend manchin it brings into question your sincerity in this discussion

Radish posted:

In regards to the recent SCOTUS bullshit rulings people are saying we need to pack the courts but lol the Democrats defend Trump administration officials not getting dinner. There's no way they pull a McConnell let alone add seats.