Good King Trump

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Originally Posted by The Man

To give ourselves a bit more credit than we perhaps deserve, he wasn't elected. The word "election" literally requires a popular vote by virtually every definition in operation, and he lost that by nearly three million votes (e.g., Merriam-Webster: "elect: to select by vote for an office, position, or membership"; Wiktionary: "election: a process of choosing a leader, members of parliament, councillors or other representatives by popular vote; the choice of a leader or representative by popular vote".) We don't elect our presidents, due to an eighteenth-century relic of slavery. He was appointed by that relic.

In any case, there is never a good time to elect (or appoint) such a dangerous man; but this was certainly a particularly inopportune time. It's just worth remembering that at no point in history has there ever been a majority or even a plurality of Americans in support of a Trump presidency*. His supporters have always been a minority of the country.

There are solutions for this: 2016–17 South Korean protests - Wikipedia

At any time prior to the current situation mass demonstration could have done something. As large and decentralized as America is, millions of people in DC is not going to happen. Put 1000+ demonstrators every fucking day in front of a state capitol could be noticed. Put a few dozen to a few hundred picketing their local rep's office/house, or their senator's office/house, again, noticed. Imagine GOP Trump humping purple state senators terrified to even return to their home state. Same with Gaetz-esque weirdos or any other who's been too much of a chickenshit to hold a town hall. Large masses of angry unemployed coming up can be channeled a couple ways, gas chambers or solidarity.

And yes, some citizens might end up taking a bullet.

[The Man]

Originally Posted by Kamilah Hauptmann

There are solutions for this: 2016–17 South Korean protests - Wikipedia

At any time prior to the current situation mass demonstration could have done something. As large and decentralized as America is, millions of people in DC is not going to happen. Put 1000+ demonstrators every fucking day in front of a state capitol could be noticed. Put a few dozen to a few hundred picketing their local rep's office/house, or their senator's office/house, again, noticed. Imagine GOP Trump humping purple state senators terrified to even return to their home state. Same with Gaetz-esque weirdos or any other who's been too much of a chickenshit to hold a town hall. Large masses of angry unemployed coming up can be channeled a couple ways, gas chambers or solidarity.

And yes, some citizens might end up taking a bullet.

I appreciate the suggestion, but such demonstrations are not going to happen and would not even be particularly responsible during a pandemic of this scale. Maybe once there's a widely available vaccine people should start doing this, though. I think people are more pissed off now than they've ever been during my lifetime.

Thing is though, it's not even practical for many of us to get to our state capitals. Tallahassee is like a five-hour drive from here, and more like nine from Miami.

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

I recognize the frustration and swear I'm not trying to be a dick.

I feel I recognized that now is the worst possible time for a mass gathering.

Originally Posted by Kamilah Hauptmann

At any time prior to the current situation mass demonstration could have done something.

Originally Posted by The Man

I appreciate the suggestion, but such demonstrations are not going to happen and would not even be particularly responsible during a pandemic of this scale. Maybe once there's a widely available vaccine people should start doing this, though. I think people are more pissed off now than they've ever been during my lifetime.

And I stress there are local areas for public protest, not everyone needs to run to the capitol.

Originally Posted by Kamilah Hauptmann

Put a few dozen to a few hundred picketing their local rep's office/house

Originally Posted by The Man

Thing is though, it's not even practical for many of us to get to our state capitals. Tallahassee is like a five-hour drive from here, and more like nine from Miami.

Also, hold my beer. My capitol is on an island and 2-3 day's drive from some corners of this province. I can appreciate distance.

I'll try to expand my line of thinking here:
What we are seeing right now is the sheer panic oligarchs get with a general strike. We are witnessing the power of Labour.

I reiterate:

Large masses of angry unemployed coming up can be channeled a couple ways, gas chambers or solidarity.

Mass protest is a thing that might have to be done or the world might be headed for another dark age. Right or wrong, America basically leads, this continent at least, and many other chunks of the globe. If America can channel greater social solidarity, there will be spin off benefits throughout America's network of allies and hopefully even further. Going the gas chamber route? Well, shit, Trumptanic takes a lot of Americans and foreigners down too.

I hope for the solidarity route, in hopes it's the route involving a lot less dead bodies.

[ceptimus]

[But]

Originally Posted by davidm

You said that the DNC was to blame for Biden coasting to victory, and NOT the voters.

I asked you HOW the DNC is to blame for Biden, as opposed to the voters — you know, those people who ACTUALLY VOTED, in most cases by huge margins, for Biden over Bernie?

Oh, I don't know, changing the rules on the fly to get Bloomberg into the debates and later to keep Tulsi out? Just FYI, I will take the liberty to use "DNC" in a broader sense to include all the party establishment dipshits and their fat cat donors.

[The Man]

Originally Posted by But

Oh, I don't know, changing the rules on the fly to get Bloomberg into the debates and later to keep Tulsi out?

In point of fact, reporting suggests that nearly every other candidate wanted Bloomberg in the debates, in order to demonstrate what a paper tiger he was as a candidate. Once Elizabeth Warren eviscerated him, his polling numbers dropped like a stone, and he dropped out shortly thereafter.

Now, is this “fair”? Perhaps not. You know what else wasn’t “fair”? Bloomberg dropping tens of millions of dollars into ads to buy support among voters without having participated in a single debate. I’m no big fan of Biden, but I’m particularly glad Bloomberg is not the nominee.

Tulsi, on the other hand, never had polling numbers above about 1-3%, so it hardly takes a grave conspiracy to keep her out of the later debates. She had been in several earlier debates, people who actually care about facts will note, and failed to gain any sort of traction from them.

Just FYI, I will take the liberty to use "DNC" in a broader sense to include all the party establishment dipshits and their fat cat donors.

So, in short, “people who actually care about facts” is a set that excludes you. Duly noted.

There is an actual DNC. I will allow readers to come up with their own terminology for knowingly using “DNC” to refer to people and groups that are not the DNC.

Originally Posted by Kamilah Hauptmann

I recognize the frustration and swear I'm not trying to be a dick.

Understood.

I feel I recognized that now is the worst possible time for a mass gathering.

Yeah, I noticed that after re-reading the post, but it was late and I decided to prioritise sleep over amending my post.

I'll try to expand my line of thinking here:
What we are seeing right now is the sheer panic oligarchs get with a general strike. We are witnessing the power of Labour.

I reiterate:

Mass protest is a thing that might have to be done or the world might be headed for another dark age. Right or wrong, America basically leads, this continent at least, and many other chunks of the globe. If America can channel greater social solidarity, there will be spin off benefits throughout America's network of allies and hopefully even further. Going the gas chamber route? Well, shit, Trumptanic takes a lot of Americans and foreigners down too.

I hope for the solidarity route, in hopes it's the route involving a lot less dead bodies.

Yeah, I tend to agree; I’m just not sure what hope there is for mass demonstrations in an era where a pandemic makes mass gatherings unsafe. I’m seeing projections now that this could be a concern, off and on, at least until the year 2025. That’s… terrifying.

[But]

Originally Posted by The Man

Tulsi, on the other hand, never had polling numbers above about 1-3%, so it hardly takes a grave conspiracy to keep her out of the later debates. She had been in several earlier debates, people who actually care about facts will note, and failed to gain any sort of traction from them.

Whatever. She qualified and was still in the race, so they just changed the rules because these shitheads can do whatever they fucking like. I'm sure she would have stuck a knife into Creepy Uncle Joe and twisted it around, as opposed to Bernie with his "good friend" bullshit, and that would have been really fucking inconvenient. It's almost certain after she knocked the shit out of dirty cop Harris.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by But

Whatever. She qualified and was still in the race, so they just changed the rules because these shitheads can do whatever they fucking like. I'm sure she would have stuck a knife into Creepy Uncle Joe and twisted it around, as opposed to Bernie with his "good friend" bullshit, and that would have been really fucking inconvenient. It's almost certain after she knocked the shit out of dirty cop Harris.

Tulsi Gabbard didn't qualify. She didn't even meet the relatively weak requirements for debate #6, and didn't meet them for the remainder of the debate schedule, without even needing to change the rules.

[erimir]

It's hard to make the case that it's undemocratic or sleazy in some way for Democratic voters to hear from the candidate who was polling in double digits and within 8 pts of the polling leader. Bloomberg spending almost a billion dollars and his opponents never getting an opportunity to face him and force him to defend his record isn't a better way to run things. You're just mad because you think Sanders should be able to win without convincing a majority of Democratic voters. Because you're concerned about fairness

The fundraising requirement is more worthy of criticism than the polling requirement, honestly. You need money to run a campaign anyway, and if you don't have one, it will be hard to get the polling numbers necessary to be in the debates anyway. And Tom Steyer showed that it doesn't guarantee grassroots support anyway - he spent more money convincing people to give him $1 donations so that he could be in the debates than he raised, so you can basically buy your way into the debate anyway (another reason to think that Bloomberg simply didn't want to be in the debates - he could've easily followed Steyer's lead and qualified anyhow).

They consistently increased the polling threshold, and once it got above 3% Gabbard couldn't meet it. They have no obligation to let someone in just because they want the opportunity to attack other candidates despite having no chance of winning. Unless you think they should let Delaney or other candidates in who would have no purpose but attacking Sanders. I'm sure they could find a few of those if that's the way it should work. The debates are for voters to see the candidates who might actually be nominated, not to let gadflies in to shit all over the party just because But thinks they should.

An issue was the volume of polling was perhaps not high enough for what they were trying for. A solution to this could be for the DNC to conduct their own polls. But while this would be perfectly reasonable way to ensure a high enough volume of polling, we know what would actually happen: if Gabbard or some other candidate barely missed the threshold, the DNC would be accused of rigging the poll, no matter how impartially conducted the poll actually was. Gabbard got a fair shot and you're still whining, I can only imagine the whining if the DNC paid for a poll and it found what all the other polls did: that Gabbard had almost no support.

Originally Posted by But

I'm sure she would have stuck a knife into Creepy Uncle Joe and twisted it around, as opposed to Bernie with his "good friend" bullshit, and that would have been really fucking inconvenient. It's almost certain after she knocked the shit out of dirty cop Harris.

Aside from it being ridiculous to think that the DNC has any obligation to let no-hope candidates in the debates for the purpose of attacking other candidates, you're fucking deluded about Tulsi herself.

Tulsi endorsed Biden while Sanders was still running.

And given that her candidacy was basically dead for months before that, she had plenty of time to endorse Sanders while he was still viable, and she could've endorsed Sanders while he was leading and chose not to. Gabbard had four debates to knife Biden in, and he had the national polling lead during all of them, yet she didn't take the opportunity to knife Biden the way you wanted.

She's not even running for reelection to Congress, her political career might be over at this point. But she still chose Biden over Sanders. The only reason anyone ever thought she was on the left was because she endorsed Sanders over Clinton; her voting record was more centrist than Biden's, and quite a bit more than Clinton's*! Maybe next time consider whether someone might be glomming onto a movement because they know people like you are credulous twits who will consider endorsing one guy more important than their entire political career. It's your own fault for believing she was really a leftist and she was your friend. Tulsi doesn't give a shit about you, she's not a leftist, she loves Hindu nationalism and thinks that one of the big problems with Obama was that he didn't shit-talk Islam enough.

Bernie lost because of his own mistakes, and because Biden was a formidable opponent despite his issues in the first couple lily-white states. He simply didn't convince a majority of Democratic voters.

*Hillary Clinton's voting record was left of the median Democratic Senator, while Joe Biden's record in the Senate was generally right about in the center of the Democratic caucus. Tulsi Gabbard was to the right of the median Democrat in every one of her Congressional terms.

[But]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Tulsi Gabbard didn't qualify. She didn't even meet the relatively weak requirements for debate #6, and didn't meet them for the remainder of the debate schedule, without even needing to change the rules.

She won two delegates and then they decided she would need 20%. That was in March. Anyway, I don't give a shit. Be happy with four more years of Drumpf.

[erimir]

Originally Posted by But

Anyway, I don't give a shit.

"I'm not mad, actually, I'm laughing."

Be happy with four more years of Drumpf.

Yes, we know you would be.

[But]

I'll be sure to bring some tiny violins to the reelection party.

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Originally Posted by The Man

Yeah, I tend to agree; I’m just not sure what hope there is for mass demonstrations in an era where a pandemic makes mass gatherings unsafe. I’m seeing projections now that this could be a concern, off and on, at least until the year 2025. That’s… terrifying.

General strikes then? Two things that strike terror in the hearts of oligarchs are guillotines and meat sack plebs stopping work.

[Jerome]

Did I mention he is good at bankruptcy? A reality TV Star?

How many new trillions dumped into the economy just now? lol

[maddog]

Holy cow. DJT's new move toward dictatorship: adjourn Congress and pack the courts AND the executive.

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

lol

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Must be an election year.

You'd think there would be an institutional penalty for using imbecilic lies to win a political fight impacting global health. But to the contrary, this woman has fashioned a lucrative brand by using imbecilic lies in political fights.

— Respectable Lawyer (@RespectableLaw) April 15, 2020

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by Kamilah Hauptmann

Must be an election year.

Why do you hate strong women?

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Originally Posted by Jerome

Why do you hate strong women?

Hey kids, what’s the formal name for that kind of logic fail?

[ChuckF]

That's just the ol' razzle dazzle

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

I’m legit asking tho. If an opportunity arises why let a tool go to waste?

[beyelzu]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

That's just the ol' razzle dazzle

I call it jeroming.



Id say it's a non sequitur or red herring if we are being technical with a bit of well poisoning. I also think it is being deliberately obtuse.

you know: jeroming

[beyelzu]

Will wonders never cease, Lindsay Graham said something I completely agree with.

Trump has been advised by a number of political allies, as well as medical experts, that there needs to be significantly more testing before the country reopens.

“The key to opening up the economy is mass testing,” Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), a Trump confidant. “There are parts you could safely begin to reopen the economy, but the real key is mass testing. You have to have mass testing. It has to be science-based.”

which we don't have at this time.

Sadly didn't hold the thought.

On the conference call Thursday with governors, Trump played down the significance of testing.

“Testing is very interesting,” Trump said, according to the audio recording obtained by The Post. “There are some states where I think you can do with a lot less testing than other people are suggesting.” He told the governors that they have “a lot of leeway” in determining how many tests they conduct.

As testing outcry mounts, Trump cedes to states in announcing guidelines for slow reopening - The Washington Post


We need testing and competency.

[JoeP]

Originally Posted by beyelzu

We need testing

Yes!

Originally Posted by beyelzu

and competency.

Good luck with that.

[JoeP]

The pale-eyed narcissist will take control & credit himself where he thinks things are going to go well, and cede control to the states where some inkling of how bad it might be penetrates the swamp of unreality he lives in.

His boss in Russia has already been doing that, letting the mayor of Moscow issue the hard rules on lockdown.