OMG Politics, I'm over it already.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Lerxst said:
Kinda hard to believe that for my entire adult life, we're still having the same old abortion debate. The anti-abortion contingent has been a minority opinion going back to at least the mid-70s.
I've always found it interesting one of the few issues where the GOP lets their moral imperative flag fly.
Click to expand...

I'm not because it's not about moral imperative, it's about locking in votes. The "radical" Christians will never vote for anyone pro-choice so the GOP is holding on to their votes as long as they can.
 
Dogsinotpalc said:
I'm not because it's not about moral imperative, it's about locking in votes. The "radical" Christians will never vote for anyone pro-choice so the GOP is holding on to their votes as long as they can.
Click to expand...

I was just talking about this. I don't think the GOP wants to overturn Roe v Wade. They won't be able to hold those single issue voters if it gets overturned. I wonder how many votes they would lose if abortion was suddenly gone. I'm not saying they would all flip to be democrats, but they just wouldn't show up to vote at all.
 
Chad said:
I was just talking about this. I don't think the GOP wants to overturn Roe v Wade. They won't be able to hold those single issue voters if it gets overturned. I wonder how many votes they would lose if abortion was suddenly gone. I'm not saying they would all flip to be democrats, but they just wouldn't show up to vote at all.
Click to expand...

Heh, I hadn't thought about it from that angle.

My facebook feed half the year was full of posts from that crowd assuring each other that God wanted them to vote for Trump, even if he was a flawed human being (who wasn't even pro-life not that long ago.) Because Hillary loves killin' babies. And if you're fightin' abortion, that justifies ANYTHING.
 
I want looking to see how the right wing press was spinning the Russian interference with the election. It's just as ghastly as climate change deniers. "Liberal fake news still trying to win the election for Hillary". Really? You are that fucking ignorant that FBI, CIA, and other intelligence agencies are now "Fake News"? I'm going to see how these next four years play out, but I don't know how many years I can live in a country with this many stupid people. :facepalm:
 
baimun said:
I want looking to see how the right wing press was spinning the Russian interference with the election. It's just as ghastly as climate change deniers. "Liberal fake news still trying to win the election for Hillary". Really? You are that fucking ignorant that FBI, CIA, and other intelligence agencies are now "Fake News"? I'm going to see how these next four years play out, but I don't know how many years I can live in a country with this many stupid people. :facepalm:
Click to expand...

If anything, you could make a legit argument that the FBI director won the election for Trump. Bastard.
 
baimun said:
I want looking to see how the right wing press was spinning the Russian interference with the election. It's just as ghastly as climate change deniers. "Liberal fake news still trying to win the election for Hillary". Really? You are that fucking ignorant that FBI, CIA, and other intelligence agencies are now "Fake News"? I'm going to see how these next four years play out, but I don't know how many years I can live in a country with this many stupid people. :facepalm:
Click to expand...

"Fake news" now just means "anything I don't want to hear or don't agree with." :facepalm:
 
Flamencology said:
If anything, you could make a legit argument that the FBI director won the election for Trump. Bastard.
Click to expand...
Now that the election is over the "process" stories, analyzing what happened, get written...

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/michigan-hillary-clinton-trump-232547

People can point fingers of blame at anyone they see fit, from Comey to racists to Russia, but if this story is at all accurate (and I see no reason to believe it isnt) the Clinton campaign itself has to shoulder much of the blame for this debacle...
 
jelloman said:
Now that the election is over the "process" stories, analyzing what happened, get written...

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/michigan-hillary-clinton-trump-232547

People can point fingers of blame at anyone they see fit, from Comey to racists to Russia, but if this story is at all accurate (and I see no reason to believe it isnt) the Clinton campaign itself has to shoulder much of the blame for this debacle...
Click to expand...

I blame the ignorance of the American people the most. And I don't mean that in a derogatory way, I mean folks have a lack of knowledge about the issues. They saw Trump as a successful businessman. After all, he is on the Apprentice. It makes no difference that if he had invested his money, he would have made more. It makes no difference that he filed for bankruptcy 6 times. It makes no difference that Paris Hilton has grown her wealth at a faster rate that Trump.

The story of the folks in Kentucky who are shocked that Trump is going to repeal Obamacare. I think too many people don't really look at the issues when they vote, they just pull the lever for R or D. I feel sorry for those who have Obamacare and voted for Trump. I also feel sorry for those who are going to depend on Social Security when they retire and voted for Trump. While he won't just get rid of SS, but it will most likely end up privatized where all they will care about is making money off it and fuck the people who need it to live.

I think Clinton's biggest failure is the same as Kerry's. They both underestimated their opponent and thought there was no way the average American would vote for them.
 
mongooz said:
i wonder what is in the law/constitution with respect to a thrown election. i know about if the electors go a different way, congress gets a say in it. but what about a defrauded election. is there a "do over" clause? do we have a new election in, say march? does anyone have the authority to declare, with enough evidence, that the election is voided?
Click to expand...

Congress only gets involved if a candidate fails to reach 270 electoral votes. If 270 or more electors vote for a (presumably eligible) person, that person is the president.
 
Chad said:
I think Clinton's biggest failure is the same as Kerry's. They both underestimated their opponent and thought there was no way the average American would vote for them.
Click to expand...
Absolutely correct...add to that the arrogant refusal of the camaign to acknowledge the input from the field operatives and instead defer to their "data"...

Underestimating is the Cardinal sin of any competition, from sports to politics, and it comes with extreme costs...
 
FenderPusher said:
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...personally-involved-u-s-election-hack-n696146

Eager to see how the right spins this, fake news/liberal propaganda or good, he got our guy elected... This whole thing is fucked.
Click to expand...
My favorite parts:

A former CIA official who worked on Russia told NBC News that it's not clear the U.S. can embarrass Putin, given that many Russians are already familiar with allegations he has grown rich through corruption and has ordered the killings of political adversaries.

and:


Russian President Vladimir Putin (right), Krasnodar region Governor Alexander Tkachev (center) and ExxonMobil Chairman and CEO Rex Tillerson (left) in 2012
 
jelloman said:
Now that the election is over the "process" stories, analyzing what happened, get written...

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/michigan-hillary-clinton-trump-232547

People can point fingers of blame at anyone they see fit, from Comey to racists to Russia, but if this story is at all accurate (and I see no reason to believe it isnt) the Clinton campaign itself has to shoulder much of the blame for this debacle...
Click to expand...
I feel like the even without all of the exterior "noise" the DNC fumbled this election by being arrogant and out of touch with the people they are supposed to represent. This story is one example.
 
We are in a new political era for presidential politics. The old one...largely innovated by Nixon based on Reagan's gubernatorial strategies in CA...where the rightness and moderation of a personable "decent fellow" is sold via a ground game managed by dedicated professional election experts while negative campaigning is used to suppress turnout for the opposition in key battleground states is OVER.

Putin took the GOP culture war model and made it cartoonish and silly in Russia...importing US personality politics to a new market. Now we seem to be importing it back, like how we sold rock and roll to the U.K. and bought it back as rock. This new Putinist nationalist strongman troll politician is a new thing for us. We helped innovate parts of it, but the whole package in Trump is a new kind of celebrity madness.

I assume that the Dems will put up their own version in 2020. Elon Musk? Mark Cuban?
 
Peen Simmons said:
like how we sold rock and roll to the U.K. and bought it back as rock.
Click to expand...

:hmm:

I assume that the Dems will put up their own version in 2020. Elon Musk? Mark Cuban?
Click to expand...

They could put up Cuban, but there's enough of the country that hates the guy and won't vote for him, so they'll be stuck with the same outcome. I would vote for Musk, so obviously it's not going to happen.
 
Help!I'maRock! said:
:hmm:



They could put up Cuban, but there's enough of the country that hates the guy and won't vote for him, so they'll be stuck with the same outcome. I would vote for Musk, so obviously it's not going to happen.
Click to expand...

I know a ton of folks hate Cuban, but I loved when he made the Dairy Queen comment about the refs. When DQ got mad, he didn't just apologize, he went and worked in a DQ for a day and paid for all of the sales that day.
 
Chad said:
I know a ton of folks hate Cuban, but I loved when he made the Dairy Queen comment about the refs. When DQ got mad, he didn't just apologize, he went and worked in a DQ for a day and paid for all of the sales that day.
Click to expand...

He's a controversial guy and an outspoken Democrat. I don't know much about him, but I see enough negative press to know it's going to take some convincing of the public. And that's not a good place for the DNC to start in the next cycle. They're going to have to find their next Obama.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top