*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 6673
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #6240 on: September 23, 2020, 03:22:18 PM »
Republican says to always protect against republicans.

I'm saying that politics in America is a two-way street and the powers one party gives to itself is eventually given to the other. It's part of what, in theory, should keep political power in check. If one party gives itself an advantage to bypass 'normal' political processes, it should be no surprise to anyone that the other party then uses that same advantage to bypass those very same processes. As I told Saddam, it's the truly ultimate irony that a decision Democrats made in 2013 to cheat the nomination process ends up costing them two supreme court positions and quite likely it's going to cost them three.

Every hole the Republicans put in our political process will be used to the Democrats advantage and every hole the Democrats put in our political process will be used to the Republicans advantage. I think the key lesson that Congress needs to learn is to stop putting holes in our political process. It's almost like there was a good reason why court appointments weren't simple majority in the first place.

I am glad these sorts of decisions require constitutional amendment in Canada.

*

Offline honk

  • *
  • Posts: 2005
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #6241 on: September 24, 2020, 12:08:27 AM »
@honk Threatening to try to try to impeach the president for putting forth a SC nominee is idiotic. POTUS isn’t doing anything illegal, he is absolutely within his rights. More broadly, if you can’t see that your political process is absolutely toxic to the core, I don’t know what to tell you. The amount of strife present in American political discourse just isn’t present in other Western democracies. Brinkmanship is par for the course and you guys need to heal this divide. Calling for civil war, or doing “whatever it takes” to score points back at the GOP isn’t going to do that. As shitty as the Republicans are right now, and as much as a Biden administration is almost certainly going to be an improvement (maybe they will pay attention to the environment), the lack of consensus will continue to spiral your country downwards.

I'm not disagreeing with your general assessment of the dysfunction of American politics, only your blame of both sides. I don't think this is a both-sides issue, and mischaracterizing the problem makes it harder to properly address it. The Democrats aren't perfect, but they make an effort of maintaining a semblance of ethical behavior and responsibility that goes far beyond the Republicans' relentless grasping at partisan gain at any price. Democrats aren't the ones weaponizing key functions of Congress as tools to bolster the administrations they favor and sabotage the ones they don't; Republicans are. Democrats aren't the ones aggressively courting and pandering to deranged conspiracy theorists and unsavory fringe figures who rightly should have no major presence in national politics, Republicans are. Democrats aren't the ones refusing the hold their members accountable in the face of allegations of sexual misconduct and other ethical breaches; Republicans are. Democrats aren't the one launching numerous frivolous congressional investigations on thin grounds to sabotage opposing politicians and presidential candidates; Republicans are. Democrats aren't the ones staffing their administrations with unqualified yes-men and hyperpartisan ideologues; Republicans are. And most importantly of all, Democrats aren't the ones who have united in near-unanimity behind the man in the Oval Office that any objective outside observer would quickly recognize as a malicious bully and an incompetent blowhard; Republicans are. Sometimes the enlightened centrist position isn't the correct one. Sometimes one side is just wrong and the other is right, or at least far "more right" than the other one.

a decision Democrats made in 2013 to cheat the nomination process ends up costing them two supreme court positions and quite likely it's going to cost them three...It's almost like there was a good reason why court appointments weren't simple majority in the first place.

You know that the 2013 Democrats only used the nuclear option to require just 51 votes for Cabinet secretary and federal judge nominees? It was in 2017 that the nuclear option was used, by Republicans, to only require 51 votes for SC nominees. You can call it "extending" what the Democrats had done if you like, but using the nuclear option is using the nuclear option. They still had to vote to change the rules. It's not like it was only half a nuclear option and therefore only required half the effort or anything. It was a full-blown use of the nuclear option, and they could easily have done it even without the 2013 rule change. And it's no use saying that they wouldn't have thought of it without the Democrats doing it first, because the article I linked shows that Republicans had the idea back in 2003. But again, this is all of limited relevance, given that the current controversy is not focused on the number of votes needed. Obviously, there are countless things that had to happen first before this situation could happen, but that doesn't mean that they are "responsible" for what eventually happened in a direct, proximate sense.

Quote
Every hole the Republicans put in our political process will be used to the Democrats advantage and every hole the Democrats put in our political process will be used to the Republicans advantage. I think the key lesson that Congress needs to learn is to stop putting holes in our political process.

If that's your position, then why are you defending what the Republicans are doing? We're not simply witnessing the after-effects of a process already in motion or anything. Republicans are right now consciously choosing to hypocritically disregard a principle they demanded Democrats abide by for their own short-term partisan gain, with no better justification than the fact that they have the power to do it. That is itself introducing further dysfunction into the system, putting another hole in the political process that the Democrats will exploit and use against the Republicans as soon as the opportunity arises. You shouldn't be supporting it.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2020, 02:54:54 PM by honk »
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 2280
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #6242 on: September 24, 2020, 05:05:24 AM »
https://news.yahoo.com/trump-campaign-reportedly-discussing-contingency-153100735.html

Trump's newest tactic to circumvent the democratic process.

This is another reason I have trouble viewing anyone who still supports Trump as "patriotic". The man wants to be emperor for life; he wants to start a Kim-style dynasty. How any patriotic American can not see that this is the opposite of what this country is supposed to stand for I'll never fathom.

If you support Trump you support the end of democracy. Is that really a good thing? Is that the side a patriotic American would choose?
Electro-Theologist, Poet, Philosopher, Musician, Etymologist, Egyptologist, Astro-Theologist, Geocentrist, Flat Earther, and Collector of Rare Books.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 5763
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #6243 on: September 24, 2020, 05:50:57 AM »
https://news.yahoo.com/trump-campaign-reportedly-discussing-contingency-153100735.html

Trump's newest tactic to circumvent the democratic process.

This is another reason I have trouble viewing anyone who still supports Trump as "patriotic". The man wants to be emperor for life; he wants to start a Kim-style dynasty. How any patriotic American can not see that this is the opposite of what this country is supposed to stand for I'll never fathom.

If you support Trump you support the end of democracy. Is that really a good thing? Is that the side a patriotic American would choose?
Because the other side is evil and obviously cheating. 

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7240
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #6244 on: September 24, 2020, 10:01:14 PM »
https://news.yahoo.com/trump-campaign-reportedly-discussing-contingency-153100735.html

Trump's newest tactic to circumvent the democratic process.

This is another reason I have trouble viewing anyone who still supports Trump as "patriotic". The man wants to be emperor for life; he wants to start a Kim-style dynasty. How any patriotic American can not see that this is the opposite of what this country is supposed to stand for I'll never fathom.

If you support Trump you support the end of democracy. Is that really a good thing? Is that the side a patriotic American would choose?

This sounds like the same gaslighting that occurred before the 2016 election, when Hillary spent an inordinate amount of time telling Trump supporters to make sure "you accept when Trump loses" and things like "he must make sure he accepts the results of the election." The result? Trump actually ended up winning and the DNC screeched about "Russian interference" for the past four years. Ironically, it was the Democrats that had enormous trouble accepting their loss (and still do).

So, here we are again, where the DNC reaches the point where they spread the propaganda that, somehow, Trump has already lost and that you should be scared he won't accept the results of the election. It's a tired meme at this point and I'm surprised anyone still falls for it. No, there aren't magical contingency plans or mysterious rumblings of civil war in the event that Trump doesn't win the election. This is the same tired propaganda they trotted out in 2016 and it's the same annoying tagline that will drip in irony when Trump wins anyway.

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 6673
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #6245 on: September 24, 2020, 10:40:13 PM »
https://news.yahoo.com/trump-campaign-reportedly-discussing-contingency-153100735.html

Trump's newest tactic to circumvent the democratic process.

This is another reason I have trouble viewing anyone who still supports Trump as "patriotic". The man wants to be emperor for life; he wants to start a Kim-style dynasty. How any patriotic American can not see that this is the opposite of what this country is supposed to stand for I'll never fathom.

If you support Trump you support the end of democracy. Is that really a good thing? Is that the side a patriotic American would choose?

Seems like right now there is a ton of propaganda spewing from POTUSes sphincter-mouth regarding ballots and there was conspiracy about the election being corrupt from Trump AFTER HE WON!  There is literally zero reason to think he actually means the opposite of what he says.

This sounds like the same gaslighting that occurred before the 2016 election, when Hillary spent an inordinate amount of time telling Trump supporters to make sure "you accept when Trump loses" and things like "he must make sure he accepts the results of the election." The result? Trump actually ended up winning and the DNC screeched about "Russian interference" for the past four years. Ironically, it was the Democrats that had enormous trouble accepting their loss (and still do).

So, here we are again, where the DNC reaches the point where they spread the propaganda that, somehow, Trump has already lost and that you should be scared he won't accept the results of the election. It's a tired meme at this point and I'm surprised anyone still falls for it. No, there aren't magical contingency plans or mysterious rumblings of civil war in the event that Trump doesn't win the election. This is the same tired propaganda they trotted out in 2016 and it's the same annoying tagline that will drip in irony when Trump wins anyway.

Uhhh... How do you know how Trump will behave when/if he loses?  He hasn't given any indication whatsoever that he is committed to the peaceful transition of power and has given indications that he is opposed to it.  Your position isn't supported by reality.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2020, 10:52:26 PM by Rama Set »

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7240
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #6246 on: September 24, 2020, 11:23:42 PM »
Uhhh... How do you know how Trump will behave when/if he loses?  He hasn't given any indication whatsoever that he is committed to the peaceful transition of power and has given indications that he is opposed to it.  Your position isn't supported by reality.

At the end of the day Trump would step down because all things considered he is a weak, reactive leader who has neither the cleverness, the influence nor the dedication to pull off a regime change. His mumbling rhetoric about sticking around past an election loss is not worth serious consideration and it certainly isn't worth writing entire articles about.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2020, 11:25:56 PM by Rushy »

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 6673
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #6247 on: September 24, 2020, 11:54:09 PM »
Uhhh... How do you know how Trump will behave when/if he loses?  He hasn't given any indication whatsoever that he is committed to the peaceful transition of power and has given indications that he is opposed to it.  Your position isn't supported by reality.

At the end of the day Trump would step down because all things considered he is a weak, reactive leader who has neither the cleverness, the influence nor the dedication to pull off a regime change. His mumbling rhetoric about sticking around past an election loss is not worth serious consideration and it certainly isn't worth writing entire articles about.

I hope you are right, but that’s just a hypothesis. He is the first president not to be committed to democracy in his statements and that should be alarming to his supporters.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7524
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #6248 on: September 25, 2020, 12:09:24 AM »
Uhhh... How do you know how Trump will behave when/if he loses?  He hasn't given any indication whatsoever that he is committed to the peaceful transition of power and has given indications that he is opposed to it.  Your position isn't supported by reality.

At the end of the day Trump would step down because all things considered he is a weak, reactive leader who has neither the cleverness, the influence nor the dedication to pull off a regime change. His mumbling rhetoric about sticking around past an election loss is not worth serious consideration and it certainly isn't worth writing entire articles about.

I hope you are right, but that’s just a hypothesis. He is the first president not to be committed to democracy in his statements and that should be alarming to his supporters.

Considering that Trump's main opponent is voter fraud, I don't see why Trump should accept the results of the election if fraud is apparent.
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 6673
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #6249 on: September 25, 2020, 12:51:19 AM »
Such insight Tom. I think you were doing better with the dank memes.

*

Offline crutonius

  • *
  • Posts: 279
  • Just a regular guy. No funny business here.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #6250 on: September 25, 2020, 12:55:10 AM »
Uhhh... How do you know how Trump will behave when/if he loses?  He hasn't given any indication whatsoever that he is committed to the peaceful transition of power and has given indications that he is opposed to it.  Your position isn't supported by reality.

At the end of the day Trump would step down because all things considered he is a weak, reactive leader who has neither the cleverness, the influence nor the dedication to pull off a regime change. His mumbling rhetoric about sticking around past an election loss is not worth serious consideration and it certainly isn't worth writing entire articles about.

I sincerely hope you're right. But let's say this is just bluster on his part. A lot of his followers don't see it that way. They see it as a literal call to arms. There's going to be real world consequences from the Tom bishops of world if trump loses.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7524
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #6251 on: September 25, 2020, 04:35:57 AM »
Disingenuous Reporters: Will you accept the results of the election?

Trump: We'll see. There might be voter fraud.

Disingenuous Reporters: REEEEE! Trump refuses to accept results of election REEEEE!!

You: REEEEE!! Trump refuses to accept. REEEEE!!

Funny puppet. Please provide a list of politicians willing to accept massive voter fraud.

You will deflect, claiming that the risk of voter fraud is low or some dishonest thing like that which does not directly address the matter. But this is not what was surmised. If there is voter fraud Trump won't accept it. So again, please list out the politicians who will accept voter fraud. 

Obviously no one is going to willingly accept voter fraud. So your arguments just end up looking weak and stupid, originating from the disingenuous reporters you are parroting. Don't argue for something that you can't double down on.
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 5763
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #6252 on: September 25, 2020, 04:45:43 AM »
Trump said there was massive voter fraud and a rigged election in 2016.  He literally said "I will only accept the results if I win."

And despite 4 years, he never found evidence of a rigged election or wide spread voter fraud. 

Now he's doing the same thing: crying wolf without evidence.  And if he loses now, do you think he'll magically find evidence of wide spread voter fraud this time?  When he hasn't found it yet despite saying its already there?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7524
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #6253 on: September 25, 2020, 05:05:25 AM »
Sounds like you deflected as predicted. The question was if there is voter fraud, why should Trump accept it?

Dem states refused to participate with the federal voter fraud inquery, so don't ramble and deflect about something which does not directly address the matter. There could be many reasons for why this or why that. All deflection. Again, it's a simple question, and has nothing to do with evidence or what might or might not of happened in the past.

If there is voter fraud, why should a politician accept it?

Are you going to dishonestly deflect again or will you admit that no politician is going to accept voter fraud?
« Last Edit: September 25, 2020, 05:18:28 AM by Tom Bishop »
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

*

Offline crutonius

  • *
  • Posts: 279
  • Just a regular guy. No funny business here.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #6254 on: September 25, 2020, 05:10:20 AM »
Disingenuous Reporters: Will you accept the results of the election?

Trump: We'll see. There might be voter fraud.

Disingenuous Reporters: REEEEE! Trump refuses to accept results of election REEEEE!!

You: REEEEE!! Trump refuses to accept. REEEEE!!

Funny puppet. Please provide a list of politicians willing to accept massive voter fraud.

You will deflect, claiming that the risk of voter fraud is low or some dishonest thing like that which does not directly address the matter. But this is not what was surmised. If there is voter fraud Trump won't accept it. So again, please list out the politicians who will accept voter fraud. 

Obviously no one is going to willingly accept voter fraud. So your arguments just end up looking weak and stupid, originating from the disingenuous reporters you are parroting. Don't argue for something that you can't double down on.

What is this voter fraud that you speak of?  Can you point me to a source?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7524
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #6255 on: September 25, 2020, 05:24:45 AM »
I did not claim that there was voter fraud in any particular election. I asked you guys simple questions which you are unable to answer and can only deflect on.

If there is voter fraud, why should a politician accept it?

Can you list out which politicians would accept voter fraud?

Please answer directly.
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

*

Offline crutonius

  • *
  • Posts: 279
  • Just a regular guy. No funny business here.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #6256 on: September 25, 2020, 05:31:34 AM »
I did not claim that there was voter fraud in any particular election. I asked you guys simple questions which you are unable to answer and can only deflect on.

If there is voter fraud, why should a politician accept it?

Can you list out which politicians would accept voter fraud?

Please answer directly.

This was not what Trump was arguing.  Trump's assertion is that mail in ballots are by definition fraudulent and must not be counted.

Framing this as hedging on the contingency of voter fraud is completely disingenuous.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7524
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #6257 on: September 25, 2020, 05:40:07 AM »
Why not quote what he said?

Quote
Chris Wallace: Can you give a direct answer you will accept the election?

President Donald Trump: I have to see. Look, you — I have to see. No, I'm not going to just say yes. I'm not going to say no, and I didn't last time either.

We want to make sure that the election is honest. And I'm not sure that it can be. I don't know that it can be with this whole situation, unsolicited ballots

Looks like you were being dishonest. I don't see anything about mail-in ballots being invalid as a rule. He has his doubts on the practice of sending out millions of unsolicited ballots.

Trump said that he has to see how it plays out first to say whether he will accept it and there might be voter fraud. If there is voter fraud he's not going to accept it. And why should he? You just implicitly admitted that a politician shouldn't accept voter fraud.

« Last Edit: September 25, 2020, 05:45:45 AM by Tom Bishop »
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 5763
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #6258 on: September 25, 2020, 05:42:33 AM »
I did not claim that there was voter fraud in any particular election. I asked you guys simple questions which you are unable to answer and can only deflect on.

If there is voter fraud, why should a politician accept it?

Can you list out which politicians would accept voter fraud?

Please answer directly.
Donald J. Trump.
He would accept it if it means he won.
In fact, many politicians would accept it if they won and got away with it.  Why do you think they fight so hard against such accusations?  Trump stated, as a fact, that the 2016 election had fraud yet the investigation found nothing and closed without much of a peep.

So either
A) Trump lied.
B) He found some but he and republicans accepted it.

*

Offline crutonius

  • *
  • Posts: 279
  • Just a regular guy. No funny business here.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #6259 on: September 25, 2020, 05:48:45 AM »
Why not quote what he said?

Quote
Chris Wallace: Can you give a direct answer you will accept the election?

President Donald Trump: I have to see. Look, you — I have to see. No, I'm not going to just say yes. I'm not going to say no, and I didn't last time either.

We want to make sure that the election is honest. And I'm not sure that it can be. I don't know that it can be with this whole situation, unsolicited ballots

Looks like you were being dishonest. I don't see anything about mail-in ballots being invalid as a rule. He has his doubts on the practice of sending out millions of unsolicited ballots.

Trump said that he has to see how it plays out and there might be voter fraud. If there is voter fraud he's not going to accept it. And why should he? You just implicitly admitted that a politician shouldn't accept voter fraud.

I think your information is not quite up to date.  This is the most recent incident that I'm referring to.



Here he is stating, without any evidence, that the democrats are committing a massive amount of voter fraud.