All-purpose news and politics thread: Two Steps Beyond!(Part II)

[4saken1]

Telling people that 3rd party voting is a waste of time strikes me as being unAmerican.

I try not to tell anybody that their vote is wasted on 3rd Party candidates. It's pretty simple math, however. Imagine if there were 5 separate liberal Parties on the ballot, each a slightly different version of one another. If each of them got 15% of the vote, a Republican would win with just 25% of the vote even though 75% of the Electorate was liberal. In our Electoral process, it is a mathematical fact that unless a 3rd Party can get a majority (polls will tell if a candidate has any chance of that), every person who does not vote for one of the two front runners only increases the chance of the candidate with political views farthest from their own of winning. I would love to see more Green candidates have a viable chance at winning Elections. This is why I am always questioning why they aren't even a fraction as interested in changing the Electoral process by ballot as they are at shitting all over Democrats. They've been around for what, nearly 30 years and still only get around 1% of the votes in most Elections. I swear, it's almost as if they're not really interested in winning as much as they are in trying to help Republicans win.

[PaulBullion]

Crooked Chris Collins resigned.

[Tami]

Crooked Chris Collins resigned.

Now we need to get Jim Jorden to do the same.

[Malvolio]

Which is all well and good until you look at the context you have to build them up in and who plays a role in creating that context.

I never said it would be easy. Read the last part of my last sentence. It has been done in Maine and Vermont. So it can be done. We're just going to have to realize that some states (like New York, unfortunately) put up roadblocks to third parties. And just bitching about it whenever it doesn't work the first time (or the second or third) doesn't really accomplish much.

[Malvolio]

Democratic National Committee Backtracks On Its Ban Of Fossil Fuel Donations

The move comes just two months after the party adopted a resolution to prohibit oil, gas and coal company contributions. Something about this reversal is....unseemly to me.

**********

Trump Will Try To Help GOP Candidates Whether They Like It Or Not

The president proved popular in Republican primaries, but general elections won’t be as easy. Damned if they have his help, damned if they don't. Speaking of elections....

**********

Kris Kobach’s Lead In Kansas Governor’s Race Shrinks After Vote Count Discrepancy

Ohio Finds Nearly 600 Uncounted Votes In Too-Close-To-Call Special Election

**********

CNN’s Jake Tapper Rips Trump For Bashing NFL Players, Not White Supremacists

“Rather than condemn the bigots” of Unite the Right, the president attacked athletes fighting racial injustice, Tapper said. Well, Jake, considering Trump is a dyed in the wool racist, is that any surprise?

**********

Lastly, some SPACE FORCE humor:

Mark Hamill Mocks Donald Trump’s ‘Space Force’ With ‘Star Wars’ Burn

Stephen King Causes Meme Meltdown With Trump ‘Space Force’ Twitter Request

Jim Carrey Savages Donald Trump’s ‘Space Force’ In New Art: ‘To Stupidity And Beyond’

My guess would be that the Democrats who decided not to take money from fossil fuel companies didn't look at their books. Then, when someone took a look at the books and realized just how much money they were getting from the fossil fuel companies, that's when they changed their minds.

[worstblogever]

Apologies on the delay in today's CSGOPOTD post. It's... it's the annual Trump day. I've had to sift through days 201-500 of the Trump presidency making a timeline. I feel like f***ing Spider-Man when he doesn't feel good in Infinity War you guys. This is so goddamned draining. I have to still go over the past ten weeks before I'm done.

Should be done sometime this afternoon, then exercising my right to drink profusely after posting.

[Mister Mets]

Our 'weakness' in Michigan and Wisconsin is voter suppression in the hundreds of thousands of votes.

There are multiple claims here. Was voter suppression enough to change the outcome? And if it was, would it have been enough to change the outcome under a less favorable environment for Democrats (IE- a presidential election in which the Republican nominee isn't the least popular general election presidential candidate in polling history and hadn't just had a video released in which he bragged about sexual assault.)

Is there any reason you are posting so many things twice, and not editing the second post so someone doesn't have to read it a second time?

Edit:

- Post #395 is a duplicate of post #394
- Post #404 is a duplicate of post #402
- Post #413 is a duplicate of post #411

The duplicates aren't his fault, and there's no obligation to edit.

http://writing2.richmond.edu/writing/wweb/capital.html



..........

Dude...

I was responding to this post:

So you guys are arguing about the best policies to help a hypothetical person who does not exist?

Cortez does not respond to Ben Shaprio's offer to debate...Ben gets snippy.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b0bdd06208193c

She responded. She compared him to sexual harassers.

Yeah, we're too busy talking about more important issues, like why your party is corrupt to the core with multiple rich guys using their place in Congress to commit further insider trading, refusing to impeach a treasonous madman, and far too comfortable with locking children in cages. Also, that their long time political donor, the NRA, was infiltrated by the Russians as easily as someone can get a trained dog to roll over.

And, I'm still not exaggerating. It feels like I should be, but I'm not.

An issue with exaggeration is that Trump can be a terrible person unfit for office who has committed actions for which he should be impeached without actually being treasonous or a madman, but if the expectation that every Republican should act as if Trump were clearly established to be a treasonous madman seems to be a stretch, it gets easier to dismiss the rest of the argument.

[worstblogever]

An issue with exaggeration is that Trump can be a terrible person unfit for office who has committed actions for which he should be impeached without actually being treasonous or a madman, but if the expectation that every Republican should act as if Trump were clearly established to be a treasonous madman seems to be a stretch, it gets easier to dismiss the rest of the argument.

I'm about to put up an entire timeline of Trump's madness, that includes his inability to criticize Vladimir Putin, his administration choosing to do nothing about Russian hacking, and numerous links coming out about the Mueller investigation tying his campaign to Russians non-stop.

You picked the wrong day to try to pretend that it's it would be an exaggeration to say Trump is treasonous and/or a madman, Mets. Because you're about to get ALLLLLLL the evidence of it.

[Mecegirl]

She responded. She compared him to sexual harassers.

Pretty apt comparison in my estimation. Though of course people are taking her literally instead of metaphorically because it supports their world view. Having experienced catcalling a lot of it is about entitlement. Dudes that catcall straight up think they are owed your time/a response. And they don't mind being rude to get it. Then get pissy when they don't get it. Which is pretty much what Shapiro did.

She doesn't owe him a debate. Mostly because he isn't a politician, or a reputable journalist. She has a campaign to run. She's much too busy to waste time on him and he should know it. Also the money he said he would give her, what is that supposed to be about? Does he think she would fall for the trap and violate campaign finance laws? Does he think she's the type to be easily bought? It's condescending. And like catcallers when they come in groups it's all about showing off. Catcallers in groups know damn well that their tactics are off putting. It's just a way for the men in question to bond over harassing a woman. Shapiro knows that she would turn the offer down, and is now crowing about it to his followers. It's all to impress them.

An issue with exaggeration is that Trump can be a terrible person unfit for office who has committed actions for which he should be impeached without actually being treasonous or a madman, but if the expectation that every Republican should act as if Trump were clearly established to be a treasonous madman seems to be a stretch, it gets easier to dismiss the rest of the argument.

No one has to treat him like he is treasonous because even without treason he is unfit for office. And that is why the "exaggerations" happen. He is unfit. He even counters the past Republican presidents on important issues. Ask yourself what would Reagan or Bush Sr do?

What is keeping Republican's in federal office loyal to him? Is it stubbornness? Helplessness? Do they literally have no where else to turn? Or are they complicit? It's like watching someone in an abusive relationship. Not to belittle the struggles of someone going through an abusive relationship. A member of my family is going through it right now. We are all trying to encourage her to 100% cut ties. But the parallels are so staggering.

[Kevinroc]

I'm about to put up an entire timeline of Trump's madness, that includes his inability to criticize Vladimir Putin, his administration choosing to do nothing about Russian hacking, and numerous links coming out about the Mueller investigation tying his campaign to Russians non-stop.

You picked the wrong day to try to pretend that it's it would be an exaggeration to say Trump is treasonous and/or a madman, Mets. Because you're about to get ALLLLLLL the evidence of it.

[Gray Lensman]

I'm about to put up an entire timeline of Trump's madness, that includes his inability to criticize Vladimir Putin, his administration choosing to do nothing about Russian hacking, and numerous links coming out about the Mueller investigation tying his campaign to Russians non-stop.

You picked the wrong day to try to pretend that it's it would be an exaggeration to say Trump is treasonous and/or a madman, Mets. Because you're about to get ALLLLLLL the evidence of it.

Will your profile be out of date within a couple hours of posting it? Most likely. That should be a joke, but I don't see the humor in it anymore.

[worstblogever]

Will your profile be out of date within a couple hours of posting it? Most likely. That should be a joke, but I don't see the humor in it anymore.

Unless Twitter goes out of business in the next few hours... yeah, probably won't be current for long. Trump is a daily endeavor, and has surpassed Louis Gohmert on my scorecard for all time crazies, mostly because Gohmert doesn't get in front of microphones, cameras, or social media feeds as much.

[Mister Mets]

I'm about to put up an entire timeline of Trump's madness, that includes his inability to criticize Vladimir Putin, his administration choosing to do nothing about Russian hacking, and numerous links coming out about the Mueller investigation tying his campaign to Russians non-stop.

You picked the wrong day to try to pretend that it's it would be an exaggeration to say Trump is treasonous and/or a madman, Mets. Because you're about to get ALLLLLLL the evidence of it.

We'll see. You did set yourself a high bar suggesting that not only is Trump bad, but that he is a treasonous madman and that this is so obvious that Republican officeholders can be criticized for not recognizing this, and acting against this.

There's a lot of material for an anti-Trump article due to his deep flaws and high profile, but much of that material isn't about him being clearly mad or treasonous.

[aja_christopher]

We'll see. You did set yourself a high bar suggesting that not only is Trump bad, but that he is a treasonous madman and that this is so obvious that Republican officeholders can be criticized for not recognizing this, and acting against this.

Sure Mets... whatever you say -- we're all so blind and stupid here that we can't see exactly what the Republicans are doing, which is basically the same corrupt b------t they've been doing since (at least) Nixon.



This time they pissed off the wrong people though, and if there's any justice in this country, many of them will be headed to jail soon for aiding and abetting an obvious traitor.

Half of your party (like their Republican president) won't even stand up to Neo-Nazis marching in the street while a large part of the other half (like their Republican president) supports said efforts, even if they won't say so openly. You can pretend as if you don't see what the Republican party is doing to this country, with it's tax cuts and rising deficits, business-killing international tariffs and to the world at large with it's outright insane denial of climate change, but rest assured... everyone else does.

And if they haven't yet, I'm sure the coming trials -- and revelations -- will make things even more clear.

There's no need for a "high bar" with the Republican party any more -- Trump has lowered it to the point where we're no longer even surprised when the Republican Congress lets him start trade wars with allies and tear entire families apart under the guise of "National Security".

[Gray Lensman]

Trump does so many terrible things that Mets will likely have to break it down into categories.

Potentially treasonous things Trump has done - from refusing to even criticize Putin to trying to destroy alliances, and the closing ring of the Mueller probe.

Bigoted things Trump has done.

Assaults upon democracy and the rule of law not connected to foreign dictators.

Corrupt things Trump has done not covered under the earlier categories.