Octopus Overlords

We don't need "Trump is Right" headlines. However, when someone criticizes Trump for being wrong based on mistruths (which I'm using, as "lies" assumes intent), we need to point that out. There are enough real issues with Trump that we don't need to use mistruths. Besides, if the opposition starts ignoring mistruths that hurt Trump, what starts showing up in headlines isn't "Trump was Right", but "Anti-Trumpers Were Lying."

I don't want to beat Trump by being Trump. It isn't worth it.

Lying is the least harmful thing he does.

Good luck.

The Trump cancer is going to get worse the moment he leaves office (by impeachment, rage-quitting or losing the election). Trump will tweet with impunity and no control.

When you're facing a tsunami of lies, you grab a bucket and bail. If your bucket has a few holes or is dented, you don't stop bailing -- or you're going to drown..

Outright lies won't help, but when the opposition takes a negotiating position designed to undermine any good faith offer, you have to feel free to move your own starting point to have any change at a fair and right result.

GreenGoo wrote: Sun Feb 11, 2018 8:20 pm

Blackhawk wrote: Sun Feb 11, 2018 7:35 pm I can do both.

No you can't. Well, the American public can't. Every time there is a "drumpf was right this time" headline, the American public loses sight of all the wrong he has done, or at least the wrong is diminished in their eyes because hey, sometimes he's right, sometimes he's wrong, he's only human.

So every time we discuss how Drumpf is right, even when he's not right, it reduces the impact of discussions about when he is wrong, which is all the time except this one time (or that other time. Like once in thousand lies he says something that sounds true), by luck and political expediency when someone with 1/2 a brain in their head whispers into his empty head.

It's distracting, it changes the American public's focus at the moment and reduces Drumpf's perceived wrongness.

I know this is true because all the evidence that Drumpf was a subhuman monster has been available for decades, yet the American people elected him the freakin' potus. Don't distract them with meaningless hand ringing about Dems motivations.

So no, you can't do both, and that goes for Fitzy too.

There is a 500lb gorilla in the room and you guys want to know if Democrats *really* care about DACA or are just using it for political gain. Who gives a fuck. The gorilla is destroying your freakin' country.

Blackhawk wrote:We don't need "Trump is Right" headlines. However, when someone criticizes Trump for being wrong based on mistruths (which I'm using, as "lies" assumes intent), we need to point that out. There are enough real issues with Trump that we don't need to use mistruths. Besides, if the opposition starts ignoring mistruths that hurt Trump, what starts showing up in headlines isn't "Trump was Right", but "Anti-Trumpers Were Lying."

I don't want to beat Trump by being Trump. It isn't worth it.

Except for all those people facing actual fundamental and in some cases existential life crises with Trump in office.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

GreenGoo wrote: Sun Feb 11, 2018 5:56 pm Yawn. We've been over this. Rome is burning and you want to know whether the firefighters are in it for the money. Feel free to audit them AFTER the fire is out.

I'm wary of establishing any precedents that can be abused in the future by Republicans unhappy with a Democratic president.

I want Trump gone but I want it done in a manner consistent with the Constitution.

Combustible Lemur wrote: Mon Feb 12, 2018 12:10 am

Blackhawk wrote:
I don't want to beat Trump by being Trump. It isn't worth it.

Except for all those people facing actual fundamental and in some cases existential life crises with Trump in office.

Except that if we decide that lie-fights are the new status quo, we've turned Trump from an extreme anomaly to the new model for the country.

Then we all get to have an actual life crisis.

Exodor wrote: Mon Feb 12, 2018 12:14 am

GreenGoo wrote: Sun Feb 11, 2018 5:56 pm Yawn. We've been over this. Rome is burning and you want to know whether the firefighters are in it for the money. Feel free to audit them AFTER the fire is out.

I'm wary of establishing any precedents that can be abused in the future by Republicans unhappy with a Democratic president.

I want Trump gone but I want it done in a manner consistent with the Constitution.

Well, no shit. I'm not recommending Fitzy assassinate him.

Neither am I saying we get in a lie fight. There's this huge area in between drumpf and politics as usual, with plenty of ground that is both ethical and moral. I fail to see how determining whether the Dems *really* care about DACA, only sorta care, or only care as much as it buys them political capital matters in the least, until it's on the table.

The fact is, DACA was working just fine with a non-solution until Drumpf decided that removing that non-solution was a brilliant idea, because hey, brown people (this includes Obama).

The idea that DACA is being used for only political gain is ridiculous, but even it if weren't, burning healthcare to the ground covers any perceived faux pas the Dems are likely to make for the next 3 years.

I'm all for holding everyone accountable. Let's start with the very large and obvious and harmful problems first. You can worry about whether the Dems are negotiating in good faith after you've tossed an administration that we KNOW is negotiating in bad faith, because we've witnessed it again and again and it has only been a year. The administration is literally putting people in charge of departments so they can burn them to the ground. It's hilarious to hear about how concerned Americans are regarding the lead water in Michigan, while the current head of the EPA has made it easier for Michigan-like events to happen more frequently. But hey, DACA, do Dems really want to fix it?

In no way am I saying that the Dems get a free pass to do whatever they want, but when one child is shooting heroin and burning down buildings, having your wife interject that your other child is only getting C's in school seems incredibly disproportionate with the problems at hand.

Sure, you guys can hold everyone responsible, no problem, but I don't feel the average American can, and the "hey, both sides have their problems" talk is what got Drumpf in the white house in the first place.

I don't actually give a crap about the Dems at the moment. Outside of Pelosi I'm not sure I could name any of them. I think Bernie is an independent and I only know him because of the election a year ago. I do know a LOT of Republican names right now, and that's for all the wrong reasons. They are actively helping Drumpf destroy your institutions. The current administration is not a partisan problem. It's a problem that's eating America from the inside out. It's everyone's problem. The administration has to go not because of their policies (which are shitty) but because they are a bunch of corrupt, self serving petty thieves who are willing to throw the fbi, the media, the other party, their own party, any veteran who speaks out, their dog, their cat, your dead grandmother under the bus if it helps them. Even if it only helps them optically, with no other benefit. That's what's really telling. They are willing to throw anything and anyone under the bus just to change the dialogue, not even for substantive gain. They are the very definition of story book villains. There are no "two sides" to this story. They are objectively bad people doing objectively bad things (I'm not even talking policy here). End of story.

WTF.

Blackhawk wrote:

Combustible Lemur wrote: Mon Feb 12, 2018 12:10 am

Blackhawk wrote:
I don't want to beat Trump by being Trump. It isn't worth it.

Except for all those people facing actual fundamental and in some cases existential life crises with Trump in office.

Except that if we decide that lie-fights are the new status quo, we've turned Trump from an extreme anomaly to the new model for the country.

Then we all get to have an actual life crisis.

I'm not suggesting I know the answer.
Republicans have used cutthroat tactics, eschewing of norms and ethics, and a long game of exploiting the basest tendencies among us. This, with the direct knowledge that broadly speaking the dems would not, has given them control of the government, allowed them to pack the courts, warp democratic majority rule 4-6 points to the minority, falsely claim the mantle of the patriotic party, the "moral" majority, and the fucking fiscally responsible all while eroding national faith in institutions, trading our International standing for favor with corporate investors, and at the same courting our enemies while also playing Brinksmanship with our other enemies.

If the dems getting in the dirt feels a little more like winning I'm okay with that.
Lies no, pushing the pendulum too far no, but for fucks sake, stop eating your own, and aquiescing to the false equivalencies and blatant bullshit. Certain things I don't feel should be debated.
It may be my liberal elitism, but I don't argue with my students, I don't validate false thinking, and I have no qualms with crafting a narrative that helps me create a better environment for myself.
Because if I don't, the alphas, hucksters, hustlers, salespeople, cheats, zealots and fanatics will do it for me and their world tends to shit on people.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

And there's a reason I'm not involved in politics. I'm too much of an idealist, and I know it. I just refuse to support solving problem actions with other problem actions. It tends to create a nasty spiral of one-upsmanship.

Addendum:

I don't think its about "lie fighting" or out trumping Trump. But neither do I think dems should take grief beyond that of tactical failure from their base for hard political calculations.

Dems need to pay attention to the details and allow for a healthy dose of cynicism to creep into their vocabulary.

Be an idealist but don't sound like one.

Wear elitism like a badge. Elitism sends money from blue states to red, elitism sucks all the best talent to the coasts, elitism is revolutionizing the energy markets.





Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Showtimes Our Cartoon president.

http://www.sho.com/our-cartoon-president

If I'm an idealist, so be it. I will not condone a course of action that leads to war (between the parties).

I'm very much of the opinion that the two part system is breaking down, if it ever really worked. The increased power of federal government and the increased diversity of thought, just don't lend themselves to representation by two parties. I do not believe that Republicans are bad and Democrats are good. That just isn't what I see.

I do believe that Trump is bad and needs to go, but in the proper manner.

I am not an assassin. I have social anxiety and I suspect my hands would shake too much to hold a gun. I spill hot drinks, so poison is out. I inherited my father's skills as a builder, so a cool explosion is also probably out.

I also think that the the House of Representatives needs a huge increase in numbers and probably a better system of representation. Maybe three people per district, with the top three getting in so more people are represented rather than the current system of leaving 25-55% of each district feeling like they don't have a voice.

Politics isn't black and white and the dichotomy we currently push towards is ludicrous.

Trump is a terrible president. And most likely an evil or at best delusional man. He shouldn't have come anywhere near the presidency. On the rare occasion when his randomly thrown darts hit the bullseye it actually is OK to give him credit. Representing people as all good or all evil is part of the reason we got him. Clinton sucked as a candidate. She's hard to believe. She wasn't as bad as Trump, but Black and White thinking gives only two options so we had Evil Trump vs Evil Clinton.

This is a rambling post, but fuck it. I just traveled within spitting distance of the White House only to be told you can't do walk in passport applications unless you need it in 72 hours. I'm annoyed. And thus rambling.

On the interesting side, I saw the McDonald's that is official White House Carry Out Restaurant.

Someone constructed a stand in front of the post office by my work that says "Defend Trump". Seriously I feel like I'm watching the end of the world.

Fitzy wrote: Mon Feb 12, 2018 2:08 pm I'm very much of the opinion that the two part system is breaking down.

The two party system was clearly broke when one party refused to even consider doing their job because they felt no need to do it and then were not punished by the electorate but rather rewarded by them.

We keep getting Presidents that the popular vote does not support. Why do we keep voting?

Daehawk wrote: Mon Feb 12, 2018 3:08 pm We keep getting Presidents that the popular vote does not support. Why do we keep voting?

Because I live in a swing state and keep trying but also because knowing they did not win the popular vote actually impacts most presidents. Also, Obama did win the popularity vote as well as the electoral college iirc.

Kraken wrote: Sun Feb 11, 2018 2:10 pm That's been unofficial policy for a long time, predating Trump anyway. ISS has already had several lifetime extensions. It doesn't do critically significant science or offer any other important capabilities, yet it sucks down about 1/4 of NASA's annual budget, so the agency can't undertake any other crewed spaceflight initiatives without major funding increases.

That said, the ISS is hardly without value, and provides a major launch market for SpaceX and others. If it were abandoned, the private launch industry would suffer. SpaceX would have scant incentive to develop its human-rated Dragon capsules, for instance, if there was no place to send them.

So privatizing the ISS makes good sense, if it can be coordinated with our international partners. Sorry, not a Trump-bashing opportunity here IMO.

Which would be cool. But it probably won't happen anyway. So everybody chill.

The Trump administration is going to think about thinking about considering ending federal funding for the International Space Station (ISS) in 2025. Cue a bunch of people freaking out about the prospect of space station privatization.

Before we get into the nitty girtty—a note: if I had a nickel for every major goal set by an American president for the space program with a time horizon of 6 to 20 years, I'd have enough money to continue funding the ISS well past 2025. Every administration comes up with its own blueprint/roadmap/guidebook to go to the moon/Mars/Alpha Centauri with all of the major deadlines conveniently kicking in long after the relevant president is somewhere on a yacht moored outside his presidential library. These plans rarely come to fruition, and are even incremental steps are frequently reversed.
...
Gradually handing over low Earth orbit to the private sector has been the incremental policy of at least three administrations, though it has been implemented in fits and starts, due largely to powerful senators who would like to keep lucrative space earmarks intact in their districts.

The International Space Station is a little trickier for reasons that are right there in the name—a lot of other nations have stakes in the sky hotel/lab, and it's not at all clear they'd be keen rejigger their elaborately negotiated agreements.

Pretty much every step of space privatization has been accompanied by this type of hysteria. There's something about space that's transpartisan in the worst possible way, bringing together the "no one would ever do pure science if it weren't for the state" lefties with the "American greatness requires that we build huge rockets with flags on them" righties. In fact, last week's successful Space X Falcon Heavy rocket launch ticks an awful lot of the boxes that the old school shuttle launches once did, and once we stick human beings on top of on those things, we're pretty much all of the way there.

Now, privatization done badly is bad. That should go without saying, but it doesn't. Ao let's say it. Privatization done badly is bad. Handing off the United States' stake in the ISS to an entity insufficiently prepared to run it properly would not be good stewardship of a valuable asset. (Also worth noting: Boeing, a private company, currently operates the space station for NASA, for $3 to $4 billion a year. And Boeing, unsurprisingly, thinks that the goal of ending federal funding to operate the space station is a really, really bad idea.)

Daehawk wrote: Mon Feb 12, 2018 3:08 pm We keep getting Presidents that the popular vote does not support. Why do we keep voting?

It is rare, historically speaking - the popular vote - electoral vote split has only happened in 2016, 2000, and sometime in the 1870s, IIRC.

Though it's still illogical and stupid to have the possibility of a split, though.

El Guapo wrote: Mon Feb 12, 2018 5:13 pm

Daehawk wrote: Mon Feb 12, 2018 3:08 pm We keep getting Presidents that the popular vote does not support. Why do we keep voting?

It is rare, historically speaking - the popular vote - electoral vote split has only happened in 2016, 2000, and sometime in the 1870s, IIRC.

Though it's still illogical and stupid to have the possibility of a split, though.

Not in a Republic, it isn't.

noxiousdog wrote: Mon Feb 12, 2018 5:51 pm

El Guapo wrote: Mon Feb 12, 2018 5:13 pm

Daehawk wrote: Mon Feb 12, 2018 3:08 pm We keep getting Presidents that the popular vote does not support. Why do we keep voting?

It is rare, historically speaking - the popular vote - electoral vote split has only happened in 2016, 2000, and sometime in the 1870s, IIRC.

Though it's still illogical and stupid to have the possibility of a split, though.

Not in a Republic, it isn't.

You can defend having an electoral college as an indirect method of presidential voting - vote wise people who will in turn choose the president. This was, of course, the original intent.

You can defend having a direct popular vote determine the president.

You can't really logically defend having an electoral college that doesn't actually deliberate on their choice of voting for president, but whose only actual impact is to make votes in some states matter more than votes in other states. Which is, unfortunately, the system we are stuck with at the moment.

El Guapo wrote: Mon Feb 12, 2018 6:12 pm You can't really logically defend having an electoral college that doesn't actually deliberate on their choice of voting for president, but whose only actual impact is to make votes in some states matter more than votes in other states. Which is, unfortunately, the system we are stuck with at the moment.

Why can't you? (which is not to defend our president or the fact that we have "small states" holding the country hostage. I think we've failed a pretty good system more than the system has failed us.

LordMortis wrote: Mon Feb 12, 2018 9:35 pm

El Guapo wrote: Mon Feb 12, 2018 6:12 pm You can't really logically defend having an electoral college that doesn't actually deliberate on their choice of voting for president, but whose only actual impact is to make votes in some states matter more than votes in other states. Which is, unfortunately, the system we are stuck with at the moment.

Why can't you? (which is not to defend our president or the fact that we have "small states" holding the country hostage. I think we've failed a pretty good system more than the system has failed us.

Really, though, if you're not defending small states holding the country hostage, how is it a good system?

The electoral college is premised on the idea that voters have a greater collective political interest as residents of a state than they do as citizens of the USA. That might actually have been true in the late eighteenth century when economics were local, property was physical, and political participation was severely restricted. It's not true now.

Blackhawk wrote: Mon Feb 12, 2018 2:53 am And there's a reason I'm not involved in politics. I'm too much of an idealist, and I know it. I just refuse to support solving problem actions with other problem actions. It tends to create a nasty spiral of one-upsmanship.

I'm entirely with you and Fitzy. Nothing good will come from a pissing war about who hates Trump more. Pointing out legitimate issues and flaws with anti-Trump arguments/sentiment does not mean you are pro-Trump, and it doesn't mean you are doing anything to minimize the horrible cluster fuck that is the Trump administration.

Goo, I feel like I probably agree with you on 99% of the positions I think you hold, but when I see you post here, sometimes part of me feels like you are trying to hold people up to some sort of "you're with me, or you're against me" litmus test. Or, rather a "you hate Trump and condemn him for 100% of what he does and says, or you're a Trump sympathizer or a sadly naive rube because you somehow fail to see that you're desire to hold all sides to the same standard is empowering Trump)" test.

I disagree and think that path is more dangerous by far.

Holman wrote: Mon Feb 12, 2018 10:27 pm

LordMortis wrote: Mon Feb 12, 2018 9:35 pm

El Guapo wrote: Mon Feb 12, 2018 6:12 pm You can't really logically defend having an electoral college that doesn't actually deliberate on their choice of voting for president, but whose only actual impact is to make votes in some states matter more than votes in other states. Which is, unfortunately, the system we are stuck with at the moment.

Why can't you? (which is not to defend our president or the fact that we have "small states" holding the country hostage. I think we've failed a pretty good system more than the system has failed us.

Really, though, if you're not defending small states holding the country hostage, how is it a good system?

The electoral college is premised on the idea that voters have a greater collective political interest as residents of a state than they do as citizens of the USA. That might actually have been true in the late eighteenth century when economics were local, property was physical, and political participation was severely restricted. It's not true now.

It's not even really premised on that. It's more premised on the idea that the rabble can't be counted on to vote wisely, so we need to put indirect councils of sort in between, who will be fully informed and make an independent judgment on who should be president. But it doesn't do that at all anymore - the electoral voters are just rabid partisans who can be counted on as much as possible to *not* exercise their independent judgment (and in many / most states are legally forbidden from voting for whomever they choose). So, what's the point of the system anymore, other than to periodically give the election to the candidate with the fewer votes based on their random vote distribution?

The problem isn’t that we have an Electoral College. The problem is that we have bound electors. The EC can’t do what the EC was designed to do (not let the people directly elect the President, because the People are largely uniformed rubes that vote for simple short-term self-serving interests that enable human piles of human excrement like Trump to get elected on the back of populist horseshit) when you have bound electors that are selected and forced to vote the way that those largely uninformed rubes tell them to vote.

I think I've made it clear that there is a difference in scale between the problems of the WH and the complaints I hear directed at the Dems, which is why it's enraging to hear them uttered in the same breath.

It's how Drumpf campaigned successfully and it's how a third of the country thinks Drumpf's doing a great job.

Worse, the republicans have shown that they will sacrifice the very institutions of your country for personal gain. To hear their mudslinging being taken seriously...

I don't know any other way to say this: Drumpf is destroying your country but when he says "look over there" people do. It's bizarre to me that anything said by republicans at the moment is taken as something to seriously consider, so when I hear fitzy buy into the attempts at redirection I am seriously confused.

a) the reps just sacrificed middle America's healthcare and then mortgaged their future and gave it to the rich.

b) they look directly into the camera and tell baldfaced lies that are easily verified.

Those sins are unforgivable. That the Dems, who have almost zero power at the moment are ALSO being considered a problem right now baffles me when a) and b) are happening in full public view. If the Dems were eating children I'd still consider them lower priority, given how little they control at the moment.

We'll get to the child eating Dems when we can, but right now there are far bigger fish to fry.

It's not with me or against me, it's why are we talking about minor Dem faults when your country is in a state of emergency completely caused by the Reps. It diminishes the perceived danger of the Reps. That a 1/3 of your country is already not getting the message tells me more focus on the administration's​ damage is needed, not distractions about minor issues with the currently powerless party.

What a pain to write on my phone.

RunningMn9 wrote: Mon Feb 12, 2018 11:19 pm The problem isn’t that we have an Electoral College. The problem is that we have bound electors. The EC can’t do what the EC was designed to do (not let the people directly elect the President, because the People are largely uniformed rubes that vote for simple short-term self-serving interests that enable human piles of human excrement like Trump to get elected on the back of populist horseshit) when you have bound electors that are selected and forced to vote the way that those largely uninformed rubes tell them to vote.

Like I said, my point is that the system as it currently functions makes no logical sense. The original design of the electoral college is at least defensible in theory.

I would add, however, that I strongly suspect that our current system is the inevitable result in practice of the electoral college structure. You can't expect a group that has organized to get a specific candidate elected in a national election to NOT organize to try to get specific electors chosen (who they expect will vote for their candidate). Similarly, it's a little silly to expect uninformed rubes to evaluate and select knowledgeable, wise electors without an expectation that they'll vote for a specific candidate.

I don't know how one would design a system that would result in some sort of wise citizen councils to choose the president, but I don't think the electoral college system is it.

What are the chances a Republican elector in the Electoral College is going to vote for sanity even IF you can restore its intended function? The extremist wing's control of the GOP has been 20-30 years in the making. They've rallied around Trump, and they're not returning to sanity anytime soon.

The Democrats need better messaging and organization, not Electoral College reform.

Zarathud wrote: Tue Feb 13, 2018 5:21 am What are the chances a Republican elector in the Electoral College is going to vote for sanity even IF you can restore its intended function? The extremist wing's control of the GOP has been 20-30 years in the making. They've rallied around Trump, and they're not returning to sanity anytime soon.

The Democrats need better messaging and organization, not Electoral College reform.

The electoral college should be abolished, not reformed. Though that's not a "pro-Democratic" thing - we could also wind up with a democratic candidate elected without the popular vote too - and more of a pro-democracy thing.

El Guapo wrote: Tue Feb 13, 2018 11:12 amThe electoral college should be abolished, not reformed. Though that's not a "pro-Democratic" thing - we could also wind up with a democratic candidate elected without the popular vote too - and more of a pro-democracy thing.

Can you imagine an America where it really was one person, one vote? Total anarchy!

I do agree with you, though. We have the tech and the means that they didn't have 'back in the day' and we can actually get a popular vote tally in less than a day. I think more people might actually vote if they felt it mattered.

Actual Rob Porter defense - I didn't smash in the glass on the door of my ex-wife's house when she locked me out of the house! I merely tapped it in a sufficiently forceful manner that my knuckle went through the glass, breaking it.

With such rock solid explanations, no wonder he was defended by the White House.

GreenGoo wrote: Mon Feb 12, 2018 11:45 pm I think I've made it clear that there is a difference in scale between the problems of the WH and the complaints I hear directed at the Dems, which is why it's enraging to hear them uttered in the same breath.

It's how Drumpf campaigned successfully and it's how a third of the country thinks Drumpf's doing a great job.

Worse, the republicans have shown that they will sacrifice the very institutions of your country for personal gain. To hear their mudslinging being taken seriously...

I don't know any other way to say this: Drumpf is destroying your country but when he says "look over there" people do. It's bizarre to me that anything said by republicans at the moment is taken as something to seriously consider, so when I hear fitzy buy into the attempts at redirection I am seriously confused.

a) the reps just sacrificed middle America's healthcare and then mortgaged their future and gave it to the rich.

b) they look directly into the camera and tell baldfaced lies that are easily verified.

Those sins are unforgivable. That the Dems, who have almost zero power at the moment are ALSO being considered a problem right now baffles me when a) and b) are happening in full public view. If the Dems were eating children I'd still consider them lower priority, given how little they control at the moment.

We'll get to the child eating Dems when we can, but right now there are far bigger fish to fry.

It's not with me or against me, it's why are we talking about minor Dem faults when your country is in a state of emergency completely caused by the Reps. It diminishes the perceived danger of the Reps. That a 1/3 of your country is already not getting the message tells me more focus on the administration's​ damage is needed, not distractions about minor issues with the currently powerless party.

What a pain to write on my phone.

There's no buying into anything. You can deny it if you want, but I'm perfectly capable of saying Donald Trump sucks donkey butt, while acknowledging that the Democrats are putting their lips pretty damn close to the ass too. This isn't a Democrat = Donkeys joke btw.

I can parse the things Donald Trump says and pull out the occasional truth. That doesn't = support. It just means that with all the crap he says and does, hitting him on the head for what amounts to nothing more than typical political grandstanding is pointless. Hammer him on the destructive actions he's taking. You claim that the false equivalency between Trump and Dems allowed him to win, now you're pulling a similar stunt by making every misstep into the end of the world. You claim we don't need distractions about minor issues, yet every minor issue about Trump is blown into a mountain.

All I'm saying is there is plenty of real, terrible things he is doing. Trump is trading away our future one destroyed relationship at a time. His rhetoric shutdown The Trans Pacific Partnership, now those countries are looking to each other and China. He pulled out of the Paris agreement, now China and the EU will lead the way in future energy projects and US companies will wait behind. He attacks NAFTA and Canada and Mexico find new markets. We are digging coal while the rest of the world looks to the future in the sun and wind and other sustainable energy. He talked down our dollar, if it goes too far the entire debt situation could collapse, which would be the end of the US. His support for white supremacy is causing a surge in racial tension. His refusal to acknowledge that Russia interfered is allowing them to step in again in 2018. All of these things are horrible. Any single one should cause people to recoil from him as chief donkey butt kisser, let alone President. And they are just the beginning of his shit!

But those are difficult topics and can't be seriously discussed in 240 characters or whatever Twitter is limited to now.

So instead we get attacks on "Republicans want DACA fixed more than Democrats". That's literally normal political bullshit. Statements like that have been flung since Adams V. Jefferson. It's vague. It's open to interpretation, which allows Trump supporters to point out yet another unfair attack on Trump.

Saying that doesn't mean "OMG! Fitzy is Trump supporter!" anymore than pointing out the stupidity and hypocrisy coming from the left makes me a Trump supporter. Nor am I distracted from the disaster he is.

And if I chose to give the Democrats a very careful look over, before punching the ballot box in their favor, that too doesn't mean I support Trump. It simply means I'm not willing to be mauled by the donkey after getting trampled on by the elephant. (that was a political animal joke)

Fitzy wrote: Tue Feb 13, 2018 12:56 pm I'm perfectly capable of saying Donald Trump sucks donkey butt, while acknowledging that the Democrats are putting their lips pretty damn close to the ass too.

I think that what GreenGoo is saying is that the danger that Trump represents to this country is so great that literally *any* time wasted on acknowledging that the Democrats are putting their lips pretty damn close to the ass is a dangerous waste of time. You claim you can do both, but the very fact that you are doing both is necessarily distracting you from the scale and scope of the danger.

At least that's what I think he's saying.

Fitzy wrote: Tue Feb 13, 2018 12:56 pm And if I chose to give the Democrats a very careful look over, before punching the ballot box in their favor, that too doesn't mean I support Trump. It simply means I'm not willing to be mauled by the donkey after getting trampled on by the elephant. (that was a political animal joke)

I think you're undercutting yourself right there and making GG's point. That you think there is anything to "look over" when comparing a Republican to a Democrat at this point means you've fallen for the GOP narrative to some extent. Large portions of the Republican party are currently destroying our institutions, covering up crimes in the Whitehouse, and objectively lying to the American people and press on a regular basis among countless other misdeeds.

Whatever faults the Democrats might currently have are in a completely different league than what's going on in the Republican party right now, and anyone who convinces themselves to vote for anyone but a Democrat in the upcoming election is giving their support to Drumpf in all but name.

We need to oust the Republicans from power for a generation, before everything they've come to embrace becomes entrenched, and once we've done that I'll happily hold the Democrats feet to the fire.

You won't oust them for a generation or even a single election when roughly 35% of the American populace is either brainwashed, ignorant, indifferent, or ineffective enough to wish for a virtual autocracy where facts, science, and progress are the enemy.

I do hope they continue to shed the "better" Republicans and harden their core insanity so it becomes a party that can't win anything useful. I suppose the problem is that the better folks still hate Democrats and won't vote for them and won't abstain from voting.

There really needs to be a party they can move to and leave the world-burning bank-robbing racists behind.

I'm glad there are rational people typing responses with clear heads that I agree with in here. As I just discarded a ridiculous rambling epic rant to say what several of you just elucidated in short paragraphs. Sigh, I get carried away sometimes.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

RunningMn9 wrote: Tue Feb 13, 2018 1:37 pm
At least that's what I think he's saying.

Close enough. Are Dems eating babies?

Yes. Ok, vote for them and deal with their baby eating after the country is saved.

No. Ok, vote for them with a clear conscience, knowing that the current Rep is corrupt to its core. They claim the media is the enemy of the people for god's sake. That's like, step 1 of the "how to become an autocracy" handbook. This behaviour ALONE should be enough to kick them out of office. When you add up everything else...I mean...I'm just...wtf America?

GreenGoo wrote: Tue Feb 13, 2018 3:39 pm wtf America?

The easiest way to answer this question is to spend a couple hours watching Fox News and/or listening to Limbaugh, and then look at their ratings. Trumpism is in part the result of feeding a huge chunk of America with this "minorities and liberals are coming for you!!!" worldview.

Is there a Fox News equivalent in Canada?

Beats me.

The Toronto Sun is pretty conservative I've noticed, but that's a newspaper. Remember those? Me neither.

Alberta is pretty conservative. We had a Christian poster here one time that was from Alberta. More conservative than the Christians in Ontario, I found.

Max probably knows which way various channels lean.