Total posts: 4,140
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
Isn't obstructing pretty much the opposite of effective?
If he was obstructing his own agenda, then yes, it would be. However, if he obstructed the other party's agenda, which he did, then it is effective. Senators and Representatives are elected both to try to pass things they agree with and to stop things they disagree with. When they are in the minority, their primary job is to stop things they disagree with. So if a Senator is successfully obstructing things they disagree with, then they are doing their job and being effective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
I heavily disagree. If a rule is changed just so one side benefits, that’s inherently unfair.
It depends how much they benefit. If you have armed, hostile soldiers looking over your ballot, then every ballot will be affected, and it will be completely unfair. If it's a dispute over counting mail-in ballots that arrive after election day, then very few ballots will be affected. Unless there's reason to believe that those ballots would change the result, then it's still mostly fair.
Just because you don’t hear about it, doesn’t mean they aren’t there.
Where?
How would you analyze the impact of the rule change? You really can’t because you can’t compare it to the baseline. It’s basic method. Everyone knew about this.
It depends on the nature of the rule change. If it affects every ballot, then it can be difficult and imprecise. If it only affects some ballots, then it can be easier.
If you have Democratic executives in places like WI and PA changing the law singlehandedly, without any consultation or law change of the state legislatures, how unfair and contradictory to the concept of separation of powers is that?
To the separation of powers, quite unfair. To the election? Unfair, but not to a huge degree. Again, there would have to be evidence that it would be enough to change the results. However, regarding the national election, not unfair at all. Flipping PA and WI isn't enough to make Trump win.
I never said Trump is the best speaker. He’s notorious for his hyperbolic speech.
"This was the most unfair election ever" is hyperbole. "Venezuela hacked voting machines" is an insane conspiracy theory.
You can ask for evidence all day. You can ask for hard numbers all day,
And I will. If Trump claims the election was rigged, then he better have evidence proving it. The bar for evidence does not get lower due to an inability to meet it.
Theirs is no statute that doesn’t allow the VP power.
That is the exact opposite of how governmental powers are granted. If it doesn't say they can, they can't. If it doesn't say they can't, but also doesn't say they can, then they still can't.
And Democratic operatives violating the founding concept of separation of powers is just left to be and not talked about. Really sad.
Would you mind arguing against my positions and not the positions of the stereotypical NeverTrumper that you imagine me to be? I don't think it should be left as it is and ignored. My position isn't "The election was perfect and should never be questioned!" If there are questions, then they need to be answered. If the questioners find problems, the problems should be solved. However, if someone questions an election, they need to have evidence to back up their claims. It's grossly irresponsible to spout off rubbish about bamboo in ballots and the like.
But ultimately, quibbling about the imperfections of the election rather misses my point about Trump. If an election has problems, then those problems should be dealt with legally using the courts and the state legislatures, not by propagating insane conspiracy theories and attempting to illegally overturn the election. None of the problems in the election justify what Trump did. Not even close.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
See the problem here is that everyone argues that the election was perfect. It had numerous flaws.
Well, I'm not part of everyone. Once you get past a certain size, no election is perfect. However, imperfect does not mean unfair or illegitimate or rigged.
Hell State Supreme courts across the nation have found Democratic rule changes that benefited not them unconstitutional. The system was rigged against Trump. It’s like finding out the lottery is rigged to give one guy all the money
The claim in the first sentence does not support the claim in the following sentences. You can say, "There were bad laws." Probably. There probably have been bad laws in most or all elections. You can say, "The bad laws favored one side over another." Maybe so. Again, probably not uncommon. But unless you can say, "There were bad laws, and here is the evidence showing that they had enough impact to flip the election," you can't conclude that it was rigged. And that is a case that I haven't seen anyone even attempt to make.
But more pertinently, claiming that there were bad laws does absolutely nothing to justify Trump's behavior. He hasn't been limiting himself to rational, defensible claims. He and his lawyers have been spouting off one insane conspiracy theory after another. He also didn't limit himself to legal means to challenge the results. He tried to pressure the vice president to illegally overturn the election. That behavior is indefensible and unacceptable. And if that continues and becomes more mainstream, it will eventually destroy our constitutional system.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
I'm not a Republican.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Do you hate Mitch McConnell more or Donald Trump? I’m curious
As a Christian, I believe it is my duty to love everyone, although I confess that politicians make that difficult. More to the point, I think Trump is worse than McConnell. I have a lot of disagreements with McConnell, but I agree with him more than I agree with Trump. I also have more respect for McConnell. Not because of his personality (I have no idea what his personality is like), or because of his integrity (I doubt he has any), but because of how good he is at his job. I've read a lot of history about the US government. I think McConnell will be remembered as one of the most effective Congressional leaders.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Are you accusing me of lying? If so, feel free to look back at my posts when I first got here. I opposed him from the start.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
I think your argument revolves around an emotional argument and personality differences, which is fine.
It doesn't revolve around emotions or personality, and it never did.
But at the end of the day, does the media and Democrats’ opinion about you matter?
It doesn't, and it never did.
How will Trump ruin the country? Everyone said that in 2016. Nothing happened.
Something did happen. A sitting president refused to accept the results of a legitimate election. Millions believed him. Some resorted to violence. Trump attempted to overturn an election. Yes, the Democrat's policies are bad for America. So are election denialism and attempted coups. A democracy relies on the willingness of both sides to acknowledge defeat. Without that, it will collapse.
I do not, however, buy into the Democrat's hysterical claims that the Republicans winning even one more election would be the END OF DEMOCRACY. I think our constitutional system is stronger than that. However, if election denialism continues to grow, it will eventually fail. And before you can say, "But Stacey Abrams and Al Gore," I entirely agree. That's one (out of many) reasons that I won't vote for the Democrats either.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
I never voted for him.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
See, this is the problem. Establishment Republicans would rather vote a Democrat into office and let the nation go to shit rather than voting for Trump. If that’s the game y’all wanna play, that’s the game you will get.Trump Republicans are smart enough to vote establishment over Dems for the county, but it doesn’t work the other way around. Why?
That's a good question, and it deserves an answer, so I'll do my best. I can't speak for all the various NeverTrump factions - establishment Republicans, conservative independents, and various others who don't fit neatly into a category. But in my opinion, Trump is not any better than the Democrats. The main argument for voting for Trump over a Democrat is that Trump is the lesser evil. I don't think he is the lesser evil. I think he is just as bad as the Democrats, albeit in a different way. My refusal to vote for Trump isn't a case of letting the Democrats ruin the country; it's that I think Trump would also ruin the country. When the choice is between "Ruin the country with Trump" and "Ruin the country with the Democrats", I have no preference because they are equally bad, so I won't vote for either of them.
Of course, you are free to say that Trump is better than the Democrats, and the Democrats are free to say that they are better than Trump. It's a free country, and you can think what you like. But I don't think either of them is the lesser evil.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
He may be the most hated person in the Senate, but he is also the smartest. He's been running rings around Schumer and (previously) Reid. He's excellent at obstructing the Democratic agenda, and he was instrumental in implementing the Republican agenda during Trump's term. There are a lot of valid criticisms that can be leveled at him, but ineffective is not one of them. Also, his opponent was Rick Scott, who was in charge of making sure the Republicans took the Senate. We all know how that went.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
But even moreso, it is a screenshot of the post and not the post itself.
The original post was deleted, so they couldn't link to it.
It could be a fake for all we know.
That would require evidence to believe that they faked it. But assume they did. Why would they fake it? That is, why would they fake a post from one Republican, but not fake posts or fake other disqualifying reasons for any other Republican? Why single her out? If the goal is to commit fraud, then ejecting only two Republicans is pointless. You might say someone has a vendetta against her personally. But if that is the case, then this event doesn't indicate fraud, but rather that some other poll worker with power to eject her is a jerk. And why would any news organizations go along with that? Simply put, there is no motive to fake it.
Wouldn't someone who claims election integrity is important be someone who would uphold the integrity of an election?
Not necessarily. It could also mean that she would cry fraud at any number of innocuous events.
Created:
Posted in:
It turns out that it was Ukrainians with a bad aim rather than Russians with a bad aim. No nuclear apocalypse today, I suppose. I really don't think Poland would have started anything over an obvious accident anyway, though. Neither Russia or Ukraine would deliberately attack a random Polish farm. There's nothing to gain, and everything to lose.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Statichead
I believe in the Christian conception of heaven and hell.
If someone told you that you had 3 days to live, would you be ready to die?
Ready? Yes. Want to? Not really.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
That article misrepresents why they were ejected. Far be it from me to call CNN a reliable source, but:
In this case they provide the actual post that caused them to be ejected, which reads as follows:
I stood up for what’s right today in Washington DC. This election was a sham. Mike Pence is a traitor. I was tear gassed FOUR times. I have pepper spray in my throat. I stormed the Capitol building. And my children have had the best learning experience of their lives,
They weren't kicked out because they wanted a free and fair election. They were kicked out for attending the January 6 rally and storming the Capitol (or claiming to). That is an appropriate thing to do. People who call the results of free and fair elections a sham and storm government buildings to try to overturn said election should not be in charge of elections. This is akin to Elon Musk firing Twitter employees who publicly attack Twitter's new direction, only a much more severe offense.
Edit: The Atlanta Journal Constitution confirms the nature of the post.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Like nominate him again so they can lose in a landslide?
Or nominate DeSantis, only to have Trump run as a third party, causing Republicans to lose in a landslide?
I really hope there's door number 3, but I kind of doubt it.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
Politics < Cheetos < Everything else
Created:
According to reports, a man from Florida painted himself orange and announced his candidacy for President. He said in his speech, “Not many people know this, but I have been President before. I did a great job, really tremendous. Some say the best ever, better than Lincoln. I don’t know, but they say that, lots of people say it.” Many witnesses to the event asked him why he chose to paint himself orange. According to the Florida man himself, “Why do you hate orange? Orange is a great color. Sad!” After his announcement, a loud yawn of boredom was heard across the nation. “Again? I’m so tired of this guy already,” said one American, who looked suspiciously like an antediluvian turtle with a cocaine habit.
Many people are skeptical of the Florida man’s chances of victory, given his previous record. When asked for comment, he replied, “A lot of people keep saying that I lost the last election. Wrong! That’s fake news! That was a guy from New York. That wasn’t me. I don’t know him, but I heard he is a terrible guy, a big loser.” For some reason the news is also reporting on the reaction of a random old white guy who was found wandering around aimlessly. According to Mr. Random Wanderer, “What, who? Is that Corn Pop? Malarkey! Let me at him!”
Another Florida man was seen in the area of the incident with a massive grin on his face, but he quickly left to deal with Hurricane Libtears, which suddenly appeared as a result of the orange Florida Man’s announcement.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
There’s always a catch when conservatives try to tell a storyline.
And the catch you mention may be true. That still has nothing to do with my point. The only point I was making was that uncounted votes in California are not going to flip the popular votes to Democrats. I offered no explanation for why the popular vote was the way it was, and I did not tell any storyline.
They simply can’t win on the facts. They must distort the facts and use half truths to make their case.
Is that why you abandoned your claims about California and pivoted to a completely different argument when your first argument was challenged with a bit of math?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Are we talking about democrats who voted or voters who voted for democrats?
Voters who voted for Democrats.
Because 105 million is not how many ballots were cast in 2022. It’s more like 150 million.
Quite possible. The 105 million are just the ones that have been counted so far. However, that has nothing to do with my point, which was that the millions of votes left to count in California are not enough to prevent Republicans from winning the national popular vote by 3-4%.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
You’re dreaming. There are millions of democratic votes left to count in California
Actually, he's right on target. Republicans are currently up 5 million in the national popular vote.
7.3 million ballots in California have been counted, which is an estimated 63% of the total.
That leaves about 3.5 million left in California. Even if every single one of those is Democratic, the national vote will still be Republican. However, they won't all be Democratic. Based on the current results of the CA gubernatorial race, about 60% of the remaining ballots will be Democratic. Thus, once the remaining ballots in California are counted, there will be about 2.1 million Democratic ballots and 1.4 million Republican ballots. That will only cut the Republican lead to 4.3 million. Democrats would have a national total of 49.35 million, and Republicans would have 53.67 million. That is a 4.2% lead for Republicans. Thett3 estimated that Republicans would end with a 3-4% advantage. He is still correct when California is taken into account.
Note: I am ignoring independents for simplicities' sake, so these numbers are not exact.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Earth
/out due to life happening when I don't want it to.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
It's funny you say that because Newton's theories were replaced with EinsteinsOh really. In when did that happen exactly?
I know this one. Einstein's theories replaced Newton's in the first few decades of the 1900s. Newton's theories are still used because they are very accurate when relativistic effects are negligible. However, they are now recognized to be an incomplete description of how the world works. Many parts of the modern world, including the internet, are based on Einstein's theories and would not function correctly with only Newtonian physics.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
None of that explains why you have to bash someone in every post you make. There's an old saying that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. If you want to change people's minds, you need to be civil, even, and perhaps especially, if they don't deserve it. But if you want people to dig in their heels and cling to their false beliefs, then insults and derision are excellent tactics.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Now this is the kind of statement the country needs to hear from conservatives. Bravo!
Well, thank you.
The opposite of what thett3 said above in post #166
There you go again. Can you make a post that doesn't criticize anyone? Can you say something positive without using it to bash someone else? Please?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
Moving on won't be easy, you can't get out of a Faustian deal without a lot of pain, Trump knows they can't win without his loyal base and he has threated to leave and start a new party before, they were terrified. They can't win with him, and they can't win without him, and they put themselves in that position by being gutless cowards, now they pay the price.
If Trump runs as an independent, so be it. It will sink the Republicans, but it will also prove that Trump will put himself before his country and his party.
But what am I saying? That has been incredibly obvious since before he announced his candidacy in 2015, and has only gotten more obvious since. The damage that he has done to the Republican party will take a long time to undo, if it can be undone at all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Trump will tear DeSantis apart and go third party if DeSantis gets the nomination. You guys are screwed.
You're probably right about that.
Created:
Posted in:
There are currently four senate races that haven't been called. Republicans are ahead in two, Democrats in one, and one (Georgia) looks like it will go to a runoff. A 51-49 Republican Senate is quite possible. However, without Kemp's coattails, Walker will have an uphill battle. I think the most likely outcome is another 50-50 Senate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Judging by how Trump's candidates did in swing states, I think it's safe to say that Trump 2024 would be political suicide for Republicans.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
While I predicted a red wave, I worried that Reps would fail to legislate effectively once given the majority. As it stands now, the Dems get yet more time to own our nation’s situation. It should make for a ripe 2024!
Only if they don't nominate Trump. If they do, last night will be the best case scenario.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
I will say after last night, if comes down to Trump and DeSantis in the primary, I do not know who I would vote for
What would you have said on Monday?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
True. Establishment voters don't like election lies.
Created:
Posted in:
Perhaps this will finally teach Republicans that they need to dump Trump.
Perhaps pigs will fly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
At this point I'll let him fight that battle on his own.
Created:
Posted in:
It's looking like Republicans got burned by nominating Trump-backed losers rather than actually good candidates. They could still get bailed out in Nevada, but this looks like a big disappointment for the GOP. Everything was in their favor, and they may well have blown it all away for the sake of the worst loser since Herbert Hoover.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
His statements apply to everyone. He’s objecting to so- called “no effort” threads (and posts). That’s you, and you started this no effort thread.
I don't enjoy argument for argument's sake, so I'll let you have the last word.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
I offered an explanation of how he was being logically consistent in his previous statements and his current actions. That does not imply that his statements apply to me, especially since his statements were specifically about him.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
This is your thread. Did you put a lot of work into this?
Never claimed I did.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
He was talking about threads, not individual posts. So no, I don't.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
You don't like that he posted a song? Seriously? It's okay to have fun sometimes.
Created:
Posted in:
Although I am glad that Pie outsmarted mafia into making him win instead of them. As I understand it, his wincon was activated as soon as he was lynched, but mafia needed one more kill to win. A fitting, ignominious ending to the great Starbuck's gambit.
Created:
Posted in:
The problem with putting town in the minority is that, as soon as is discovered, the TPs have no reason to side with town. Also, conversion roles are insanely swingy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
@Vader
@K_Michael
@Public-Choice
Thanks!
Created:
Posted in:
The midterms are today. Go vote, then come here and post all your darkest fears, then watch the results come in, then cry hysterically about America's future. Ready? Here we go!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vici
That's legitimately a fantastic catchphrase. I wish I'd thought of that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
Thanks!
DART Bard > satire sites > meme channels > late night TV hosts > female comedians
That might be a tad bit too high of praise.
Created: