|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On July 04 2024 01:36 KwarK wrote:
There's also the issue of whether Biden wants to be the one to kick off the civil unrest.
The verdict in the hush money trial is already at question, the sentencing delayed because with presidential immunity at play, it also voids all evidence that came up when Trump, in 2017, tried to hide the hushmoney payments and this would be considered an "official act". So even if paying hushmoney would have been illegal because as a candidate he would have to be transparent... if it only can be proven by using evidence from the time he already has been in office ..the verdict might have to be voided.
I bet trump getting off the hook... AGAIN... will solidify the trust in the "social contract" [sarcasm]
Trump already showed his hand. Starting an insurrection with the goal to not letting Mike Pence sign off the election result was clearly civil unrest.
I think Team Biden needs to prepare playing dirty as well.
I don't think that the USA will be a liveable place with "Project 2025" for long..
|
On July 04 2024 02:26 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2024 18:14 Gorsameth wrote:On July 03 2024 12:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 03 2024 12:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 03 2024 12:11 Husyelt wrote:On July 03 2024 12:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 03 2024 12:02 Husyelt wrote:On July 03 2024 11:07 Aconteus wrote:
--- Nuked --- Why did this post get banned? It's a PBU troll, over and over again. Check the last few pages. PBU troll? were they just relogging in with a new account to avoid a proper ban? Dozens of times, yeah. Don't engage. I agree with most of your last two posts btw. I'm not sure if Newsom is a better call than Biden, though. Based on the first round of polls Michelle Obama is the best option. Among the names of top Democrats put before respondents, only Michelle Obama, wife of former Democratic President Barack Obama, outperformed Biden and led Trump 50% to 39% in a hypothetical matchup. www.reuters.comHarris is the next best being within the margin of error at least. Seeming increasingly clear Biden is out, but Democrats have no idea how they are going to unite behind anyone other than Biden. Michelle also really doesn't want to do it, but she'd totally do it if she could make Hillary speak at her Inauguration and then like after a week/month/year of doing fun president stuff she just gave it to her VP. Is there any reason for Michelle beyond 'Obama'? The American answer to everything. Lets start another dynasty, because they always work out so well. You should thank the guy who obliterated the idea of dynasties in 2016.
This post is an example of being wrong in so many ways.
1) Hillary was not part of Bill's dynasty. Hillary has been Secretary of State and a Senator all on her own. A lot of people would suggest that she was the one who made him a governor and then president, not the other way around. If Chelsea was running for president and someone defeated her, we could talk about the end of the Clinton dynasty.
2) People are still clamoring for dynasties, so no, Trump didn't obliterate the idea. The fact that Michelle Obama's name (who has never held any political office) is in the running to replace Biden is an obvious example of that.
3) Trump is literally trying to install a dynasty of his own. He has given official positions in his White House to his kids and now the leader of the RNC is his daughter-in-law.
Your statement is wrong in just about every way.
|
Northern Ireland27001 Posts
Is there much conservative backlash to this most recent delightful Supreme Court ruling?
I mean obviously Trump cultists will love it, but those outside his thrall?
It would seem to be a worrying expansion of the office of the President for one, which is a frequent bugbear. There’s the obvious rule of law aspect to it, as well as the central issue of judicial activism.
|
Northern Ireland27001 Posts
Interesting, albeit worrying and depressing article about how the misinformation age is starting to look like with AI added into the toolkit
www.bbc.co.uk
|
On July 04 2024 02:35 RenSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2024 02:26 oBlade wrote:On July 03 2024 18:14 Gorsameth wrote:On July 03 2024 12:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 03 2024 12:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 03 2024 12:11 Husyelt wrote:On July 03 2024 12:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 03 2024 12:02 Husyelt wrote:On July 03 2024 11:07 Aconteus wrote:
--- Nuked --- Why did this post get banned? It's a PBU troll, over and over again. Check the last few pages. PBU troll? were they just relogging in with a new account to avoid a proper ban? Dozens of times, yeah. Don't engage. I agree with most of your last two posts btw. I'm not sure if Newsom is a better call than Biden, though. Based on the first round of polls Michelle Obama is the best option. Among the names of top Democrats put before respondents, only Michelle Obama, wife of former Democratic President Barack Obama, outperformed Biden and led Trump 50% to 39% in a hypothetical matchup. www.reuters.comHarris is the next best being within the margin of error at least. Seeming increasingly clear Biden is out, but Democrats have no idea how they are going to unite behind anyone other than Biden. Michelle also really doesn't want to do it, but she'd totally do it if she could make Hillary speak at her Inauguration and then like after a week/month/year of doing fun president stuff she just gave it to her VP. Is there any reason for Michelle beyond 'Obama'? The American answer to everything. Lets start another dynasty, because they always work out so well. You should thank the guy who obliterated the idea of dynasties in 2016. This post is an example of being wrong in so many ways. 1) Hillary was not part of Bill's dynasty. Hillary has been Secretary of State and a Senator all on her own. A lot of people would suggest that she was the one who made him a governor and then president, not the other way around. If Chelsea was running for president and someone defeated her, we could talk about the end of the Clinton dynasty. 2) People are still clamoring for dynasties, so no, Trump didn't obliterate the idea. The fact that Michelle Obama's name (who has never held any political office) is in the running to replace Biden is an obvious example of that. 3) Trump is literally trying to install a dynasty of his own. He has given official positions in his White House to his kids and now the leader of the RNC is his daughter-in-law. Your statement is wrong in just about every way.
He wasn't being sarcastic? I thought it was obvious that Trump would want to bequeath the United States to Ivanka or Don Jr. or a clone of himself.
|
United States44076 Posts
On July 04 2024 03:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2024 02:35 RenSC2 wrote:On July 04 2024 02:26 oBlade wrote:On July 03 2024 18:14 Gorsameth wrote:On July 03 2024 12:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 03 2024 12:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 03 2024 12:11 Husyelt wrote:On July 03 2024 12:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 03 2024 12:02 Husyelt wrote:On July 03 2024 11:07 Aconteus wrote:
--- Nuked --- Why did this post get banned? It's a PBU troll, over and over again. Check the last few pages. PBU troll? were they just relogging in with a new account to avoid a proper ban? Dozens of times, yeah. Don't engage. I agree with most of your last two posts btw. I'm not sure if Newsom is a better call than Biden, though. Based on the first round of polls Michelle Obama is the best option. Among the names of top Democrats put before respondents, only Michelle Obama, wife of former Democratic President Barack Obama, outperformed Biden and led Trump 50% to 39% in a hypothetical matchup. www.reuters.comHarris is the next best being within the margin of error at least. Seeming increasingly clear Biden is out, but Democrats have no idea how they are going to unite behind anyone other than Biden. Michelle also really doesn't want to do it, but she'd totally do it if she could make Hillary speak at her Inauguration and then like after a week/month/year of doing fun president stuff she just gave it to her VP. Is there any reason for Michelle beyond 'Obama'? The American answer to everything. Lets start another dynasty, because they always work out so well. You should thank the guy who obliterated the idea of dynasties in 2016. This post is an example of being wrong in so many ways. 1) Hillary was not part of Bill's dynasty. Hillary has been Secretary of State and a Senator all on her own. A lot of people would suggest that she was the one who made him a governor and then president, not the other way around. If Chelsea was running for president and someone defeated her, we could talk about the end of the Clinton dynasty. 2) People are still clamoring for dynasties, so no, Trump didn't obliterate the idea. The fact that Michelle Obama's name (who has never held any political office) is in the running to replace Biden is an obvious example of that. 3) Trump is literally trying to install a dynasty of his own. He has given official positions in his White House to his kids and now the leader of the RNC is his daughter-in-law. Your statement is wrong in just about every way. He wasn't being sarcastic? I thought it was obvious that Trump would want to bequeath the United States to Ivanka or Don Jr. or a clone of himself.
Off topic but you reminded me that Barron used to be an alter ego of Donald Trump. When he was unhappy with how he was being covered in the press, such as when Forbes wouldn't inflate his net worth on their rich list, he would call them up pretending to be some guy called Barron and would put on a different voice. Then, as Barron, he'd complain to them about their unfair treatment of Trump and say that he personally knew that Trump was much richer than that.
His son Barron is named after the fake persona Trump used to use.
|
On July 04 2024 03:16 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2024 03:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 04 2024 02:35 RenSC2 wrote:On July 04 2024 02:26 oBlade wrote:On July 03 2024 18:14 Gorsameth wrote:On July 03 2024 12:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 03 2024 12:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 03 2024 12:11 Husyelt wrote:On July 03 2024 12:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 03 2024 12:02 Husyelt wrote:
[quote]
Why did this post get banned? It's a PBU troll, over and over again. Check the last few pages. PBU troll? were they just relogging in with a new account to avoid a proper ban? Dozens of times, yeah. Don't engage. I agree with most of your last two posts btw. I'm not sure if Newsom is a better call than Biden, though. Based on the first round of polls Michelle Obama is the best option. Among the names of top Democrats put before respondents, only Michelle Obama, wife of former Democratic President Barack Obama, outperformed Biden and led Trump 50% to 39% in a hypothetical matchup. www.reuters.comHarris is the next best being within the margin of error at least. Seeming increasingly clear Biden is out, but Democrats have no idea how they are going to unite behind anyone other than Biden. Michelle also really doesn't want to do it, but she'd totally do it if she could make Hillary speak at her Inauguration and then like after a week/month/year of doing fun president stuff she just gave it to her VP. Is there any reason for Michelle beyond 'Obama'? The American answer to everything. Lets start another dynasty, because they always work out so well. You should thank the guy who obliterated the idea of dynasties in 2016. This post is an example of being wrong in so many ways. 1) Hillary was not part of Bill's dynasty. Hillary has been Secretary of State and a Senator all on her own. A lot of people would suggest that she was the one who made him a governor and then president, not the other way around. If Chelsea was running for president and someone defeated her, we could talk about the end of the Clinton dynasty. 2) People are still clamoring for dynasties, so no, Trump didn't obliterate the idea. The fact that Michelle Obama's name (who has never held any political office) is in the running to replace Biden is an obvious example of that. 3) Trump is literally trying to install a dynasty of his own. He has given official positions in his White House to his kids and now the leader of the RNC is his daughter-in-law. Your statement is wrong in just about every way. He wasn't being sarcastic? I thought it was obvious that Trump would want to bequeath the United States to Ivanka or Don Jr. or a clone of himself. Off topic but you reminded me that Barron used to be an alter ego of Donald Trump. When he was unhappy with how he was being covered in the press, such as when Forbes wouldn't inflate his net worth on their rich list, he would call them up pretending to be some guy called Barron and would put on a different voice. Then, as Barron, he'd complain to them about their unfair treatment of Trump and say that he personally knew that Trump was much richer than that. His son Barron is named after the fake persona Trump used to use.
Oh yeah, Donald Trump was "John Barron". Insane.
|
On July 04 2024 02:35 RenSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2024 02:26 oBlade wrote:On July 03 2024 18:14 Gorsameth wrote:On July 03 2024 12:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 03 2024 12:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 03 2024 12:11 Husyelt wrote:On July 03 2024 12:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 03 2024 12:02 Husyelt wrote:On July 03 2024 11:07 Aconteus wrote:
--- Nuked --- Why did this post get banned? It's a PBU troll, over and over again. Check the last few pages. PBU troll? were they just relogging in with a new account to avoid a proper ban? Dozens of times, yeah. Don't engage. I agree with most of your last two posts btw. I'm not sure if Newsom is a better call than Biden, though. Based on the first round of polls Michelle Obama is the best option. Among the names of top Democrats put before respondents, only Michelle Obama, wife of former Democratic President Barack Obama, outperformed Biden and led Trump 50% to 39% in a hypothetical matchup. www.reuters.comHarris is the next best being within the margin of error at least. Seeming increasingly clear Biden is out, but Democrats have no idea how they are going to unite behind anyone other than Biden. Michelle also really doesn't want to do it, but she'd totally do it if she could make Hillary speak at her Inauguration and then like after a week/month/year of doing fun president stuff she just gave it to her VP. Is there any reason for Michelle beyond 'Obama'? The American answer to everything. Lets start another dynasty, because they always work out so well. You should thank the guy who obliterated the idea of dynasties in 2016. This post is an example of being wrong in so many ways. 1) Hillary was not part of Bill's dynasty. Hillary has been Secretary of State and a Senator all on her own. A lot of people would suggest that she was the one who made him a governor and then president, not the other way around. If Chelsea was running for president and someone defeated her, we could talk about the end of the Clinton dynasty.
A lot of people could suggest that the Earth orbits Pluto. Hillary's time at the State Department from 2009-2013 is nevertheless unlikely to have led to Bill Clinton being elected President in 1992.
The reason you are now able to say Hillary is not part of a dynasty is precisely because Drumpf obliterated her. If you don't succeed the person as ruler, then the lineage is gone - that's the point - don't intentionally fail to understand a hypothetical. You also in haste forgot to make excuses for the entire other family from 2016.
On July 04 2024 02:35 RenSC2 wrote:
2) People are still clamoring for dynasties, so no, Trump didn't obliterate the idea. The fact that Michelle Obama's name (who has never held any political office) is in the running to replace Biden is an obvious example of that.
Michelle Obama's name is not "in the running," her name is in the rumor mills of desperate voters realizing they are fucked and theorycrafting what might have been possible if their party had actually had the internal reckoning Republicans had 10 years ago rather than autopiloting itself into irrelevant corporatist extinction. A group of voters who fill Reddit with suicide pacts and emigration vows at the mere thought of their "party" suffering a defeat, because they have no leaders, no platform, and no ideas, and have burned the candle well beyond the end of the "but we aren't orange" wick.
On July 04 2024 02:35 RenSC2 wrote:
3) Trump is literally trying to install a dynasty of his own. He has given official positions in his White House to his kids and now the leader of the RNC is his daughter-in-law.
Kid* I believe.
There's probably a difference between having a family and creating a dynasty, as pejoratively as we might wish to use the term. For example, having the Senate confirm your daughter as Secretary of State would be different than having a family member who you trust be an official advisor to you.
As to Lara Trump, she got there all on her own.
Lastly, Drumpf is not "literally trying to install a dynasty" as he's said he doesn't want to repeat what happened last term. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-says-kids-wont-serve-administration-wins-second-term-rcna90093
This is easy to accept as Don. Jr. got divorced in that time and he wasn't even in the administration.
Let me know if you would like to continue our being-wrong-in-every-way-competition.
|
On July 04 2024 02:49 WombaT wrote:
Is there much conservative backlash to this most recent delightful Supreme Court ruling?
I mean obviously Trump cultists will love it, but those outside his thrall?
It would seem to be a worrying expansion of the office of the President for one, which is a frequent bugbear. There’s the obvious rule of law aspect to it, as well as the central issue of judicial activism.
Lol. You are working from the assumption that conservatives actually believe any of the shit they are saying. I think we should bury that notion, as they have shown time and time again that literally every argument they make is just a smokescreen, and that they are utterly willing to take the complete opposite position on any argument if they think it would help them gain more power.
I also question the existence of that mythical principled conservative who is outside of the Trump cult, as those seem to never really manifest any real opposition to the cult whatsoever.
|
A growing segment on both sides does not stand on any principle anymore and simply stands on "if it helps our side good, if it helps their side bad." Just look at conservative parents that complained about some of the bullshit they were trying to push on school children. Then they make rules like teachers have to teach the bible and post the ten commandments in their classroom. The "lets not indoctrinate children crowd" is shrinking and being replaced by the "Let's make sure they are indoctrinated with our message."
|
+ Show Spoiler [mod edit] +Bee Movie
By Jerry Seinfeld
NARRATOR:
(Black screen with text; The sound of buzzing bees can be heard)
According to all known laws
of aviation,
:
there is no way a bee
should be able to fly.
:
Its wings are too small to get
its fat little body off the ground.
:
The bee, of course, flies anyway
:
because bees don't care
what humans think is impossible.
BARRY BENSON:
(Barry is picking out a shirt)
Yellow, black. Yellow, black.
Yellow, black. Yellow, black.
:
Ooh, black and yellow!
Let's shake it up a little.
JANET BENSON:
Barry! Breakfast is ready!
BARRY:
Coming!
:
Hang on a second.
(Barry uses his antenna like a phone)
:
Hello?
ADAM FLAYMAN:
(Through phone)
- Barry?
BARRY:
- Adam?
ADAM:
- Can you believe this is happening?
BARRY:
- I can't. I'll pick you up.
(Barry flies down the stairs)
:
MARTIN BENSON:
Looking sharp.
JANET:
Use the stairs. Your father
paid good money for those.
BARRY:
Sorry. I'm excited.
MARTIN:
Here's the graduate.
We're very proud of you, son.
:
A perfect report card, all B's.
JANET:
Very proud.
(Rubs Barry's hair)
BARRY=
Ma! I got a thing going here.
JANET:
- You got lint on your fuzz.
BARRY:
- Ow! That's me!
JANET:
- Wave to us! We'll be in row 118,000.
- Bye!
(Barry flies out the door)
JANET:
Barry, I told you,
stop flying in the house!
(Barry drives through the hive,and is waved at by Adam who is reading a
newspaper)
BARRY==
- Hey, Adam.
ADAM:
- Hey, Barry.
(Adam gets in Barry's car)
:
- Is that fuzz gel?
BARRY:
- A little. Special day, graduation.
ADAM:
Never thought I'd make it.
(Barry pulls away from the house and continues driving)
BARRY:
Three days grade school,
three days high school...
ADAM:
Those were awkward.
BARRY:
Three days college. I'm glad I took
a day and hitchhiked around the hive.
ADAM==
You did come back different.
(Barry and Adam pass by Artie, who is jogging)
ARTIE:
- Hi, Barry!
BARRY:
- Artie, growing a mustache? Looks good.
ADAM:
- Hear about Frankie?
BARRY:
- Yeah.
ADAM==
- You going to the funeral?
BARRY:
- No, I'm not going to his funeral.
:
Everybody knows,
sting someone, you die.
:
Don't waste it on a squirrel.
Such a hothead.
ADAM:
I guess he could have
just gotten out of the way.
(The car does a barrel roll on the loop-shaped bridge and lands on the
highway)
:
I love this incorporating
an amusement park into our regular day.
BARRY:
I guess that's why they say we don't need vacations.
(Barry parallel parks the car and together they fly over the graduating
students)
Boy, quite a bit of pomp...
under the circumstances.
(Barry and Adam sit down and put on their hats)
:
- Well, Adam, today we are men.
ADAM:
- We are!
BARRY=
- Bee-men.
=ADAM=
- Amen!
BARRY AND ADAM:
Hallelujah!
(Barry and Adam both have a happy spasm)
ANNOUNCER:
Students, faculty, distinguished bees,
:
please welcome Dean Buzzwell.
DEAN BUZZWELL:
Welcome, New Hive Oity
graduating class of...
:
...9:
:
That concludes our ceremonies.
:
And begins your career
at Honex Industries!
|
On July 04 2024 03:25 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2024 02:35 RenSC2 wrote:On July 04 2024 02:26 oBlade wrote:On July 03 2024 18:14 Gorsameth wrote:On July 03 2024 12:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 03 2024 12:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 03 2024 12:11 Husyelt wrote:On July 03 2024 12:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 03 2024 12:02 Husyelt wrote:On July 03 2024 11:07 Aconteus wrote:
--- Nuked --- Why did this post get banned? It's a PBU troll, over and over again. Check the last few pages. PBU troll? were they just relogging in with a new account to avoid a proper ban? Dozens of times, yeah. Don't engage. I agree with most of your last two posts btw. I'm not sure if Newsom is a better call than Biden, though. Based on the first round of polls Michelle Obama is the best option. Among the names of top Democrats put before respondents, only Michelle Obama, wife of former Democratic President Barack Obama, outperformed Biden and led Trump 50% to 39% in a hypothetical matchup. www.reuters.comHarris is the next best being within the margin of error at least. Seeming increasingly clear Biden is out, but Democrats have no idea how they are going to unite behind anyone other than Biden. Michelle also really doesn't want to do it, but she'd totally do it if she could make Hillary speak at her Inauguration and then like after a week/month/year of doing fun president stuff she just gave it to her VP. Is there any reason for Michelle beyond 'Obama'? The American answer to everything. Lets start another dynasty, because they always work out so well. You should thank the guy who obliterated the idea of dynasties in 2016. This post is an example of being wrong in so many ways. 1) Hillary was not part of Bill's dynasty. Hillary has been Secretary of State and a Senator all on her own. A lot of people would suggest that she was the one who made him a governor and then president, not the other way around. If Chelsea was running for president and someone defeated her, we could talk about the end of the Clinton dynasty. A lot of people could suggest that the Earth orbits Pluto. Hillary's time at the State Department from 2009-2013 is nevertheless unlikely to have led to Bill Clinton being elected President in 1992. The reason you are now able to say Hillary is not part of a dynasty is precisely because Drumpf obliterated her. If you don't succeed the person as ruler, then the lineage is gone - that's the point - don't intentionally fail to understand a hypothetical. You also in haste forgot to make excuses for the entire other family from 2016. Show nested quote +On July 04 2024 02:35 RenSC2 wrote:
2) People are still clamoring for dynasties, so no, Trump didn't obliterate the idea. The fact that Michelle Obama's name (who has never held any political office) is in the running to replace Biden is an obvious example of that. Michelle Obama's name is not "in the running," her name is in the rumor mills of desperate voters realizing they are fucked and theorycrafting what might have been possible if their party had actually had the internal reckoning Republicans had 10 years ago rather than autopiloting itself into irrelevant corporatist extinction. A group of voters who fill Reddit with suicide pacts and emigration vows at the mere thought of their "party" suffering a defeat, because they have no leaders, no platform, and no ideas, and have burned the candle well beyond the end of the "but we aren't orange" wick. Show nested quote +On July 04 2024 02:35 RenSC2 wrote:
3) Trump is literally trying to install a dynasty of his own. He has given official positions in his White House to his kids and now the leader of the RNC is his daughter-in-law. Kid* I believe. There's probably a difference between having a family and creating a dynasty, as pejoratively as we might wish to use the term. For example, having the Senate confirm your daughter as Secretary of State would be different than having a family member who you trust be an official advisor to you. As to Lara Trump, she got there all on her own. Lastly, Drumpf is not "literally trying to install a dynasty" as he's said he doesn't want to repeat what happened last term. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-says-kids-wont-serve-administration-wins-second-term-rcna90093This is easy to accept as Don. Jr. got divorced in that time and he wasn't even in the administration. Let me know if you would like to continue our being-wrong-in-every-way-competition.
Your first one was so unhinged that people thought you were joking. I'm glad you cleared it up.
1) People have said that Hillary was the driving force behind Bill. She was the one that pushed him into politics. It's always been her ambition, not his, but she recognized that a woman would not win in the 80s and early 90s so Bill was the public face.
If you want to give credit for Trump destroying the Bush dynasty, maybe. I'm thinking George W Bush did more to destroy it than anything else though. Jeb! had some financial backers playing on the name, but he failed to ever gather real voter support that goes well beyond Trump.
2) Yes, people keep foolishly bringing up Michelle Obama's name despite her never showing any interest in politics. That doesn't sound like Trump killed the idea of dynasties, which is the point. People are still clamoring for a dynasty.
You also added a whole bunch more wrong things to your list. Republicans have no plan (except to consolidate power a la project 2025), Democrats actually do have plans for a whole range of things. The democrats have a whole party platform (https://democrats.org/where-we-stand/party-platform/) . The Republicans don't beyond "do whatever Trump tells us".
3) You think Lara Trump got there all on her own? That's laughable. What exactly qualified her? Her 4 years as a producer on Inside Edition? Her 2 years as a Fox News contributor (that she only got because her name is Trump)?
Ivanka Trump got an official title of "First Daughter and Advisor to the President", the first ever... despite plenty of other presidents having daughters. She also became the head of the Office of Economic Initiatives and Entrepreneurship (a new office created for her).
Then we add in Jared Kushner (Donald's son in law), who became the Senior Advisor to the President and also Director of the Office of American Innovation.
Don Jr has been extremely active, although mostly in the election campaigns and not so much as a government official. He then takes bribes from foreign countries through contracts with the Trump Organization. So he's certainly playing out Trump's legacy.
Eric Trump has also been extremely active in the presidential campaigns. Basically doing the same thing as his brother.
If you don't think Don Sr is trying to install a dynasty, then what the hell do you think a dynasty is?
|
Northern Ireland27001 Posts
On July 04 2024 03:33 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2024 02:49 WombaT wrote:
Is there much conservative backlash to this most recent delightful Supreme Court ruling?
I mean obviously Trump cultists will love it, but those outside his thrall?
It would seem to be a worrying expansion of the office of the President for one, which is a frequent bugbear. There’s the obvious rule of law aspect to it, as well as the central issue of judicial activism.
Lol. You are working from the assumption that conservatives actually believe any of the shit they are saying. I think we should bury that notion, as they have shown time and time again that literally every argument they make is just a smokescreen, and that they are utterly willing to take the complete opposite position on any argument if they think it would help them gain more power. I also question the existence of that mythical principled conservative who is outside of the Trump cult, as those seem to never really manifest any real opposition to the cult whatsoever.
I mean broadly this and what Blackjack said are my general sentiments.
Still, from my side of the Atlantic I’d still be curious if there is dissent coming from that side of the aisle. They do exist, even if in an increasingly vanishing minority, although generally more in the commentary class than front line politicians.
One only has to look at the reaction when any high profile politician does show any semblance of an ideological backbone.
Not that in a wider sense I have a huge amount of sympathy as it’s pretty apparently a situation where broader conservatism thought it could ride the proverbial tiger for their own expediency.
|
Northern Ireland27001 Posts
On July 04 2024 04:19 RenSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2024 03:25 oBlade wrote:On July 04 2024 02:35 RenSC2 wrote:On July 04 2024 02:26 oBlade wrote:On July 03 2024 18:14 Gorsameth wrote:On July 03 2024 12:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 03 2024 12:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 03 2024 12:11 Husyelt wrote:On July 03 2024 12:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 03 2024 12:02 Husyelt wrote:
[quote]
Why did this post get banned? It's a PBU troll, over and over again. Check the last few pages. PBU troll? were they just relogging in with a new account to avoid a proper ban? Dozens of times, yeah. Don't engage. I agree with most of your last two posts btw. I'm not sure if Newsom is a better call than Biden, though. Based on the first round of polls Michelle Obama is the best option. Among the names of top Democrats put before respondents, only Michelle Obama, wife of former Democratic President Barack Obama, outperformed Biden and led Trump 50% to 39% in a hypothetical matchup. www.reuters.comHarris is the next best being within the margin of error at least. Seeming increasingly clear Biden is out, but Democrats have no idea how they are going to unite behind anyone other than Biden. Michelle also really doesn't want to do it, but she'd totally do it if she could make Hillary speak at her Inauguration and then like after a week/month/year of doing fun president stuff she just gave it to her VP. Is there any reason for Michelle beyond 'Obama'? The American answer to everything. Lets start another dynasty, because they always work out so well. You should thank the guy who obliterated the idea of dynasties in 2016. This post is an example of being wrong in so many ways. 1) Hillary was not part of Bill's dynasty. Hillary has been Secretary of State and a Senator all on her own. A lot of people would suggest that she was the one who made him a governor and then president, not the other way around. If Chelsea was running for president and someone defeated her, we could talk about the end of the Clinton dynasty. A lot of people could suggest that the Earth orbits Pluto. Hillary's time at the State Department from 2009-2013 is nevertheless unlikely to have led to Bill Clinton being elected President in 1992. The reason you are now able to say Hillary is not part of a dynasty is precisely because Drumpf obliterated her. If you don't succeed the person as ruler, then the lineage is gone - that's the point - don't intentionally fail to understand a hypothetical. You also in haste forgot to make excuses for the entire other family from 2016. On July 04 2024 02:35 RenSC2 wrote:
2) People are still clamoring for dynasties, so no, Trump didn't obliterate the idea. The fact that Michelle Obama's name (who has never held any political office) is in the running to replace Biden is an obvious example of that. Michelle Obama's name is not "in the running," her name is in the rumor mills of desperate voters realizing they are fucked and theorycrafting what might have been possible if their party had actually had the internal reckoning Republicans had 10 years ago rather than autopiloting itself into irrelevant corporatist extinction. A group of voters who fill Reddit with suicide pacts and emigration vows at the mere thought of their "party" suffering a defeat, because they have no leaders, no platform, and no ideas, and have burned the candle well beyond the end of the "but we aren't orange" wick. On July 04 2024 02:35 RenSC2 wrote:
3) Trump is literally trying to install a dynasty of his own. He has given official positions in his White House to his kids and now the leader of the RNC is his daughter-in-law. Kid* I believe. There's probably a difference between having a family and creating a dynasty, as pejoratively as we might wish to use the term. For example, having the Senate confirm your daughter as Secretary of State would be different than having a family member who you trust be an official advisor to you. As to Lara Trump, she got there all on her own. Lastly, Drumpf is not "literally trying to install a dynasty" as he's said he doesn't want to repeat what happened last term. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-says-kids-wont-serve-administration-wins-second-term-rcna90093This is easy to accept as Don. Jr. got divorced in that time and he wasn't even in the administration. Let me know if you would like to continue our being-wrong-in-every-way-competition. Your first one was so unhinged that people thought you were joking. I'm glad you cleared it up. 1) People have said that Hillary was the driving force behind Bill. She was the one that pushed him into politics. It's always been her ambition, not his, but she recognized that a woman would not win in the 80s and early 90s so Bill was the public face. If you want to give credit for Trump destroying the Bush dynasty, maybe. I'm thinking George W Bush did more to destroy it than anything else though. Jeb! had some financial backers playing on the name, but he failed to ever gather real voter support that goes well beyond Trump. 2) Yes, people keep foolishly bringing up Michelle Obama's name despite her never showing any interest in politics. That doesn't sound like Trump killed the idea of dynasties, which is the point. People are still clamoring for a dynasty. You also added a whole bunch more wrong things to your list. Republicans have no plan (except to consolidate power a la project 2025), Democrats actually do have plans for a whole range of things. The democrats have a whole party platform (https://democrats.org/where-we-stand/party-platform/) . The Republicans don't beyond "do whatever Trump tells us". 3) You think Lara Trump got there all on her own? That's laughable. What exactly qualified her? Her 4 years as a producer on Inside Edition? Her 2 years as a Fox News contributor (that she only got because her name is Trump)? Ivanka Trump got an official title of "First Daughter and Advisor to the President", the first ever... despite plenty of other presidents having daughters. She also became the head of the Office of Economic Initiatives and Entrepreneurship (a new office created for her). Then we add in Jared Kushner (Donald's son in law), who became the Senior Advisor to the President and also Director of the Office of American Innovation. Don Jr has been extremely active, although mostly in the election campaigns and not so much as a government official. He then takes bribes from foreign countries through contracts with the Trump Organization. So he's certainly playing out Trump's legacy. Eric Trump has also been extremely active in the presidential campaigns. Basically doing the same thing as his brother. If you don't think Don Sr is trying to install a dynasty, then what the hell do you think a dynasty is?
Aye, the only argument, or well the only one I can think of against Trump trying to establish a dynasty is that he just wants loyal sycophants in all these positions and who better than family? But ultimately he doesn’t really give a shit about some long-term dynasty as he only cares about number 1, and number 1 doesn’t care what happens after he’s dead.
Which is hardly much better, indeed may actively be worse.
|
On July 04 2024 00:01 KwarK wrote:
Given how much love Reagan gets from conservatives, despite his senility, and given that the Biden presidency has actually been good by any measurable metric I wonder if there is something to be said for figurehead presidents. Perhaps it's time for Biden's dog, Commander, to become the Commander-in-Chief. Time to get SCOTUS to rule on the Air Bud principle.
Need clarification is the age requirement of 35 can mean dog years.
|
On July 04 2024 05:48 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2024 00:01 KwarK wrote:
Given how much love Reagan gets from conservatives, despite his senility, and given that the Biden presidency has actually been good by any measurable metric I wonder if there is something to be said for figurehead presidents. Perhaps it's time for Biden's dog, Commander, to become the Commander-in-Chief. Time to get SCOTUS to rule on the Air Bud principle. Need clarification is the age requirement of 35 can mean dog years.
Better hope Trump doesn't pick Kristi Noem for VP
|
I’m seeing either bad faith or ignorant defenses of the immunity ruling. There are some facts that need to be reinforced here.
1: Fascism becomes too late to stop before an actual fascist takeover. Similar to how nuclear waste protections are responded to and repaired way before the final layer of protection is compromised, societies must prevent even somewhat approaching fascism.
2: Laws or rulings can’t be assumed as beneficial or moral. We have a wealth of history indicating very bad things can be legal. Laws and rulings need to be shown to be beneficial or moral. They do not have inherent moral or logical high ground.
|
On July 04 2024 06:52 Mohdoo wrote:
I’m seeing either bad faith or ignorant defenses of the immunity ruling. There are some facts that need to be reinforced here.
1: Fascism becomes too late to stop before an actual fascist takeover. Similar to how nuclear waste protections are responded to and repaired way before the final layer of protection is compromised, societies must prevent even somewhat approaching fascism.
2: Laws or rulings can’t be assumed as beneficial or moral. We have a wealth of history indicating very bad things can be legal. Laws and rulings need to be shown to be beneficial or moral. They do not have inherent moral or logical high ground. I don't think the question is about whether or not this is bad, but what to do about it.
|
On July 04 2024 06:56 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2024 06:52 Mohdoo wrote:
I’m seeing either bad faith or ignorant defenses of the immunity ruling. There are some facts that need to be reinforced here.
1: Fascism becomes too late to stop before an actual fascist takeover. Similar to how nuclear waste protections are responded to and repaired way before the final layer of protection is compromised, societies must prevent even somewhat approaching fascism.
2: Laws or rulings can’t be assumed as beneficial or moral. We have a wealth of history indicating very bad things can be legal. Laws and rulings need to be shown to be beneficial or moral. They do not have inherent moral or logical high ground. I don't think the question is about whether or not this is bad, but what to do about it.
I may be misreading, but I gather he's trying to get at what this tweet encapsulates about the absurdity of posts like Kwark's.
Basically that libs will not recognize or appropriately react to the threat until it is dragging them to the gallows and there's nothing they can do but beg to become an executioner themselves. Many of them will too.
|
United States44076 Posts
On July 04 2024 07:30 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2024 06:56 Gorsameth wrote:On July 04 2024 06:52 Mohdoo wrote:
I’m seeing either bad faith or ignorant defenses of the immunity ruling. There are some facts that need to be reinforced here.
1: Fascism becomes too late to stop before an actual fascist takeover. Similar to how nuclear waste protections are responded to and repaired way before the final layer of protection is compromised, societies must prevent even somewhat approaching fascism.
2: Laws or rulings can’t be assumed as beneficial or moral. We have a wealth of history indicating very bad things can be legal. Laws and rulings need to be shown to be beneficial or moral. They do not have inherent moral or logical high ground. I don't think the question is about whether or not this is bad, but what to do about it. I may be misreading, but I gather he's trying to get at what this tweet encapsulates about the absurdity of posts like Kwark's. https://twitter.com/dreadconquest/status/1808346628631453741Basically that libs will not recognize or appropriately react to the threat until it is dragging them to the gallows and there's nothing they can do but beg to become an executioner themselves. Many of them will too.
You’re very smug about the failures of electoralism for someone with a 0 success rate at revolutionary socialism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
