U.S. Politics megathread (merged)

[Watt-Zeefuik]

4 hours ago, Joey J J Jr Shabadoo said:

Like I say, they don't just single out Islam. 

 

That's literally what both articles are about. Dawkins and Harris (and other prominent "new atheists," including Bill Maher) singling out Islam as somehow the worst of the religions.

[Joey J J Jr Shabadoo]

40 minutes ago, Ugly American said:

 

That's literally what both articles are about. Dawkins and Harris (and other prominent "new atheists," including Bill Maher) singling out Islam as somehow the worst of the religions.

They've consistently criticised all religions. We're not going to agree on this. 

[Sharpie]

Trump says Paul Ryan the House leader knows nothing about the birthright citizenship matter and should just do his job. Here is a boss saying one of his top managers and advisers does not know his job, how stupid can this man be, there is a major election in a few days, and the President is saying his party the Republicans a member of which is the leader of the House does not know his job or what he is talking about. I would sure be in a hurry to vote for that party,...not.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

5 hours ago, Joey J J Jr Shabadoo said:

They've consistently criticised all religions. We're not going to agree on this. 

I mean, okay, but Maher hasn't called any other religions "the motherload of bad ideas." Yes, they've criticized others, but they consistently single out Islam.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

Anyway, since the "paid accuser"/"paid protestor" thing comes up so much, it's worth looking at an actual instance of this recently. You can tell because it's actually hard to fake something this big without evidence. And, well, the guys faking it aren't very good.

 

Specifically, in the wake of #MeToo, apparently some alt-right doofuses decided that what they were accusing Democrats of doing with Kavanaugh, they could try themselves with Mueller. So they went around trying to pay people of accusing Mueller of sexual impropriety. GatewayPundit doofus Jacob Wohl teased that he had a big revelation on Twitter, as uncovered by "SureFire Intelligence."

 

Funny thing. No one's ever heard of SureFire Intelligence before. Which, I mean, NBD, lots of little companies . . . 

. . . but the website is actually registered to Wohl himself.

 

And the phone number on record is owned by his mother.

 

And then a bunch of women came forward saying, "yeah, some dingbats contacted me trying to pay me to come forward. That's not normal, right?"

 

Not to mention the stock footage "investigators" that company appears to employ.

 

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/bogus-intel-firm-in-bizarre-mueller-hit-job-tied-to-pro-trump-twitter-personality

 

It all fell apart at the seams of course, although I'm sure the President will be tweeting about it tonight at 3 AM. (https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/burkman-wohl-presser-mueller)

 

So when the inevitable "paid voters" things comes up again if the Democrats have a good night on Tuesday, please keep this in mind.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

Ooh, three posts in a row, I think that's bad luck.

 

Anyway, regarding campus anti-Semitism, again, this is what it looks like: https://www.heraldsun.com/news/local/article220956990.html

 

Quote

Police are investigating after a carved pumpkin featuring a swastika was found near a dorm building at Duke University overnight. The pumpkin was one of two racially charged incidents reported, according to the university.

 

Sheets of paper with the words “it’s okay to be white” were found on a bench near Baldwin Auditorium on the school’s East Campus, said Michael Schoenfeld, the university’s vice president of public affairs and governmental relations.

 

Note: these are not the people that those claiming to be really worried about "campus intolerance" are talking about. I would say they should be, but the people saying that aren't speaking in good faith to begin with, so they won't.

[JackLadd]

Drumpf is just trying to scare out his base with racism and fear to keep him from being slow roasted by a Dem controlled house. Sending 15000 active duty troops to the border to deal with a handful who might get that far is pure political theatre by this clown.

[Unknown user]

37 minutes ago, Ugly American said:

Ooh, three posts in a row, I think that's bad luck.

 

Anyway, regarding campus anti-Semitism, again, this is what it looks like: https://www.heraldsun.com/news/local/article220956990.html

 

 

Note: these are not the people that those claiming to be really worried about "campus intolerance" are talking about. I would say they should be, but the people saying that aren't speaking in good faith to begin with, so they won't.

You just hit that nail on the head with a great big pound coin.

[Ulysses]

2 hours ago, Ugly American said:

Note: these are not the people that those claiming to be really worried about "campus intolerance" are talking about. I would say they should be, but the people saying that aren't speaking in good faith to begin with, so they won't.

 

I'd also wonder about the good faith of those who like to cite their passion for gay rights and their ardent feminism - when it suits them.

[J.T.F.Robertson]

1 hour ago, JackLadd said:

Drumpf is just trying to scare out his base with racism and fear to keep him from being slow roasted by a Dem controlled house. Sending 15000 active duty troops to the border to deal with a handful who might get that far is pure political theatre by this clown.

 

No need to "scare" any of his base, they've been petrified from the get-go, and he knows it. A bit of additional shit-stirring wont go amiss though. 

 

[Maple Leaf]

4 hours ago, J.T.F.Robertson said:

 

No need to "scare" any of his base, they've been petrified from the get-go, and he knows it. A bit of additional shit-stirring wont go amiss though. 

 

 

What Trump is choosing to ignore is that a large number of the so-called caravan are women and children.  They are hundreds of miles away from the US border and moving slowly.  When/if they arrive at the border they will merely apply for refugee status, which they are legally entitled to do.

 

Because it suits him to do so, Trump makes it sound like Attila the Hun and his barbarian hordes are swooping down on the poor defenceless USA, ready to rape and pillage.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

5 hours ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

What Trump is choosing to ignore is that a large number of the so-called caravan are women and children.  They are hundreds of miles away from the US border and moving slowly.  When/if they arrive at the border they will merely apply for refugee status, which they are legally entitled to do.

 

Because it suits him to do so, Trump makes it sound like Attila the Hun and his barbarian hordes are swooping down on the poor defenceless USA, ready to rape and pillage.

 

Spot on, Sky news reported the other day that they were 900 miles from the US border and it'll take them weeks and weeks to arrive.

But the way Trump is going on you'd think that they'll be there imminently.

 

[Sharpie]

Trump at this time has even more trouble thinking rationally. Mueller is closing in, Roger Stone, and Bannon e mails which have been leaked show evidence of contact with Russia, and it would seem are the cherry on the cake for collusion charges against Manafort, Kuschner, and Donald jr.  It may not nail Trump but if proved could show his ele ction was false. Trump himself could be prosecuted for obstruction.  He has to stay in control of the house without it his future is bleak even with his moves such as the appointment of Justice Kavanaugh, who himself may

 end up being looked at as a candidate for reinvestigation.

On the campaigning front alone his statement that he would authorise the army to use lethal force by firing on asylum speakers who throw rocks is gaining considerable criticism from former military senior officers. He also made the stupid statement that he always tells the truth if he can. As if this is all not enough Oprah Winfrey goes into Georgia and gives a speech that is praised by all.

At least his wife takes him to bed and consoles him, at least she must be doing something because he is up at three in the morning tweeting his rubbish.

Edited November 2, 2018 by bobsharp

[Jambo-Jimbo]

23 minutes ago, bobsharp said:

Trump at this time has even more trouble thinking rationally. Mueller is closing in, Roger Stone, and Bannon e mails which have been leaked show evidence of contact with Russia, and it would seem are the cherry on the cake for collusion charges against Manafort, Kuschner, and Donald jr.  It may not nail Trump but if proved could show his ele ction was false. Trump himself could be prosecuted for obstruction.  He has to stay in control of the house without it his future is bleak even with his moves such as the appointment of Justice Kavanaugh, who himself may

 end up being looked at as a candidate for reinvestigation.

On the campaigning front alone his statement that he would authorise the army to use lethal force by firing on asylum speakers who throw rocks is gaining considerable criticism from former military senior officers. He also made the stupid statement that he always tells the truth if he can. As if this is all not enough Oprah Winfrey goes into Georgia and gives a speech that is praised by all.

At least his wife takes him to bed and consoles him, at least she must be doing something because he is up at three in the morning tweeting his rubbish.

 

Notwithstanding that if they were still on Mexican soil would that not be viewed as a hostile act against Mexico?

 

Indeed would that not make America no better than Israel when they shoot at the Palestinians who are throwing stones from inside Gaza.

[Sharpie]

6 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

Notwithstanding that if they were still on Mexican soil would that not be viewed as a hostile act against Mexico?

 

Indeed would that not make America no better than Israel when they shoot at the Palestinians who are throwing stones from inside Gaza.

 

Its my understanding that he cannot use the miltary in that way without going through Congress, exactly the reason that the National Guard have been used to assist at the Border for some time. One retired officer yesterday was surprised that the Pentagon had gone along with the deployment, he got quite angry during the conversation and commented how military officers are bound by their oath to act on behalf of the President, whom this retiree described as a draft dodger, first time I had heard it put so bluntly.

[Francis Albert]

5 hours ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

Spot on, Sky news reported the other day that they were 900 miles from the US border and it'll take them weeks and weeks to arrive.

But the way Trump is going on you'd think that they'll be there imminently.

 

After 200 pages are people still surprised by Trump's tactics? Of course he is playing the "threat" for all its worth electorally. 

 

And whoever is organising this stunt (it couldn't be could it?), and supporting it or sympathising with it, is playing right into his hands.

Edited November 2, 2018 by Francis Albert

[Jambo-Jimbo]

1 hour ago, Francis Albert said:

After 200 pages are people still surprised by Trump's tactics? Of course he is playing the "threat" for all its worth electorally. 

 

And whoever is organising this stunt (it couldn't be could it?), and supporting it or sympathising with it, is playing right into his hands.

 

Not surprised in the slightest, and he knows his base will swallow every line/lie he spins.

 

I will admit I have wondered about the timing of this 'caravan', could be complete coincidence, but it's manna from heaven and couldn't have come a more fortuitous time, allowing Trump to whip his base into an even bigger frenzy then before.

[Sharpie]

Don't overlook the electoral value of 250,00 jobs created in October, and this month will show a pay increase because of tax reform. With those things why does he have to belabor immigration.

[Justin Z]

This just happened.

 

 

 

When the original Cornette face just won't suffice.

[Justin Z]

 

[alwaysthereinspirit]

4 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

After 200 pages are people still surprised by Trump's tactics? Of course he is playing the "threat" for all its worth electorally. 

 

And whoever is organising this stunt (it couldn't be could it?), and supporting it or sympathising with it, is playing right into his hands.

This is what he does every few days......... and then  and then some posters on here (you know who you are) lose their ever ******G mind  and Trump is like

[Watt-Zeefuik]

5 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

After 200 pages are people still surprised by Trump's tactics? Of course he is playing the "threat" for all its worth electorally. 

 

And whoever is organising this stunt (it couldn't be could it?), and supporting it or sympathising with it, is playing right into his hands.

 

The caravan? These things happen on a semi-regular basis. Things are horrible in several Central American countries right now for multiple reasons, and people are trying to get out. The journey to the US is really, really long, so people travel in caravans.

 

But somehow, coincidentally right before an election, THIS ONE is really scary.

 

Scared and hungry women and children, the total number of whom could sit comfortably in the Wheatfield, are an existential threat to the greatest military force on the planet, of course.

[Francis Albert]

30 minutes ago, Ugly American said:

 

The caravan? These things happen on a semi-regular basis. Things are horrible in several Central American countries right now for multiple reasons, and people are trying to get out. The journey to the US is really, really long, so people travel in caravans.

 

But somehow, coincidentally right before an election, THIS ONE is really scary.

 

Scared and hungry women and children, the total number of whom could sit comfortably in the Wheatfield, are an existential threat to the greatest military force on the planet, of course.

Yes because Trump is exploiting it. Why is that remotely surprising?

[Tazio]

1 hour ago, Justin Z said:

This just happened.

 

 

 

When the original Cornette face just won't suffice.

 

What a ****ing arsehole, surrounded by other arseholes. 

[Sharpie]

So the faithful lawyer Cohen who said he would take a bullet for Trump has now in an interview a few days before an important election states that Trump when discussing black vote in the 2016 election said blacks are too f......g  stupid to vote for me. He also suggests some comment was made to the effect that everywhere that had black leadership was a shithole. Of course like Trump he is a liar and now the two liars will counterstrike with lies about the other liar telling lies that he had lied when telling lies about the liar telling lies that he had lied. Did you get all that, its all true.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

1 hour ago, Francis Albert said:

Yes because Trump is exploiting it. Why is that remotely surprising?

 

I'm sorry, when you said "whoever is organizing this stunt," I thought the "stunt" you were referring to was the caravan. Which would have been a really silly thing to say.

 

If I misunderstood you I apologize.

[Francis Albert]

1 hour ago, Ugly American said:

 

I'm sorry, when you said "whoever is organizing this stunt," I thought the "stunt" you were referring to was the caravan. Which would have been a really silly thing to say.

 

If I misunderstood you I apologize.

No need to apologise. You did not misunderstand me.

[Sidelight]

Lou Dobs Interview with Judicial Watch

UN / Soros Caravan details

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ffnj3iaDlS4

 

Edited November 2, 2018 by alfajambo

[Ulysses]

[ri Alban]

Must be the easiest President for a sniper in history. But that would only make him a martyr for the walking dead. 

[Watt-Zeefuik]

That's right, by damn, some wealthy Jew is sending elite troops to destroy the country masked as hungry, sick kids! No choice but to concentrate them in camps!  (We'll need a shorter, like two-word name for those camps where we concentrate them.)

 

https://mobile.twitter.com/BrianKarem/status/1058094174229147649

 

"POTUS says he is putting up "massive cities of tents", "thousands of tents" - or camps with a concentration of illegal immigrants. The overall numbers he claims could be 10, 12 or 20 million people. "The size of Vermont" he says."

 

 

Edited November 3, 2018 by Ugly American

[Justin Z]

On 01/11/2018 at 13:11, Ugly American said:

 

That's literally what both articles are about. Dawkins and Harris (and other prominent "new atheists," including Bill Maher) singling out Islam as somehow the worst of the religions.

I mean . . .

 

Asia Bibi: Huge protests in Pakistan over Christian woman released after eight years on death row for blasphemy

 

And yes, to be fair, I don't particularly like any religions. I'm equal opportunity anti-theism. I pretty much think Dawkins, Harris, etc., are too. But they see shit like this a lot, and well, what exactly is the counter to it? Without sliding into "why do they blame all Muslims for this" and "they're extra mean to Islam because brown people practise it" strawmanning. They don't, same as they don't blame all Christians for the likes of Westboro Baptist. But what we see in this video, or the fact Pakistan has capital blasphemy laws in the first place, those are the result of the poison of religious, rather than rational, thinking. It doesn't really matter that it happens to be Islam in this case--the Qu'ran and its associated Hadiths are even more of a moral shitshow than the Bible is, but people inspired by the Bible killed hundreds of thousands over hundreds of years for similar reasons. That's all I think the "new atheists" you criticise are getting at. It's only because the unconscionable words in holy books are sanctioned by an all-powerful Creator of the Universe™ that these otherwise innocent and good people can be led to do and think such horrible things.

As Steven Weinberg put it, Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. It has nothing logically to do with the inherent goodness or badness of the people who follow any particular religion. It has to do with the badness of the religion--and its scriptures. Well, I think it's a fairly safe bet that the Qu'ran ranks right up there among the worst out there, and just as the Bible is subject to analysis and criticism, so the Qu'ran ought to be. Any attitudes or policies brought about by taking those words and putting them into action must be criticised freely when they are an affront to human rights and dignity.

[Sharpie]

Saw a wee bit of Trump this morning I think from last nights rally, he was saying o the effect  that they had set in place lots of barbed wire, and he commented that barbed wire can be beautiful when used for the right things, are we serious is this really happening, who has seen barbed wire used for anything other than to cause pain to whoever or whatever tries to go through it.  Watch film of the holocaust what do they show, barbed wire, show film of WW1, again barbed wire, show film of fields for animal enclosure what do they show barbed wire. I have seen it used in many capacities, I have never seen it as beautiful.

[J.T.F.Robertson]

4 hours ago, Justin Z said:

I mean . . .

 

Asia Bibi: Huge protests in Pakistan over Christian woman released after eight years on death row for blasphemy

 

And yes, to be fair, I don't particularly like any religions. I'm equal opportunity anti-theism. I pretty much think Dawkins, Harris, etc., are too. But they see shit like this a lot, and well, what exactly is the counter to it? Without sliding into "why do they blame all Muslims for this" and "they're extra mean to Islam because brown people practise it" strawmanning. They don't, same as they don't blame all Christians for the likes of Westboro Baptist. But what we see in this video, or the fact Pakistan has capital blasphemy laws in the first place, those are the result of the poison of religious, rather than rational, thinking. It doesn't really matter that it happens to be Islam in this case--the Qu'ran and its associated Hadiths are even more of a moral shitshow than the Bible is, but people inspired by the Bible killed hundreds of thousands over hundreds of years for similar reasons. That's all I think the "new atheists" you criticise are getting at. It's only because the unconscionable words in holy books are sanctioned by an all-powerful Creator of the Universe™ that these otherwise innocent and good people can be led to do and think such horrible things.

As Steven Weinberg put it, Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. It has nothing logically to do with the inherent goodness or badness of the people who follow any particular religion. It has to do with the badness of the religion--and its scriptures. Well, I think it's a fairly safe bet that the Qu'ran ranks right up there among the worst out there, and just as the Bible is subject to analysis and criticism, so the Qu'ran ought to be. Any attitudes or policies brought about by taking those words and putting them into action must be criticised freely when they are an affront to human rights and dignity.

 

I wish we could all have the insight and intelligence of a Steven Weinberg. I confess to being totally ignorant of him, but no longer, Google is my friend.

 

Edited November 4, 2018 by J.T.F.Robertson

[Watt-Zeefuik]

5 hours ago, Justin Z said:

I mean . . .

 

Asia Bibi: Huge protests in Pakistan over Christian woman released after eight years on death row for blasphemy

 

And yes, to be fair, I don't particularly like any religions. I'm equal opportunity anti-theism. I pretty much think Dawkins, Harris, etc., are too. But they see shit like this a lot, and well, what exactly is the counter to it? Without sliding into "why do they blame all Muslims for this" and "they're extra mean to Islam because brown people practise it" strawmanning. They don't, same as they don't blame all Christians for the likes of Westboro Baptist. But what we see in this video, or the fact Pakistan has capital blasphemy laws in the first place, those are the result of the poison of religious, rather than rational, thinking. It doesn't really matter that it happens to be Islam in this case--the Qu'ran and its associated Hadiths are even more of a moral shitshow than the Bible is, but people inspired by the Bible killed hundreds of thousands over hundreds of years for similar reasons. That's all I think the "new atheists" you criticise are getting at. It's only because the unconscionable words in holy books are sanctioned by an all-powerful Creator of the Universe™ that these otherwise innocent and good people can be led to do and think such horrible things.

As Steven Weinberg put it, Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. It has nothing logically to do with the inherent goodness or badness of the people who follow any particular religion. It has to do with the badness of the religion--and its scriptures. Well, I think it's a fairly safe bet that the Qu'ran ranks right up there among the worst out there, and just as the Bible is subject to analysis and criticism, so the Qu'ran ought to be. Any attitudes or policies brought about by taking those words and putting them into action must be criticised freely when they are an affront to human rights and dignity.

 

#1. This is the thread about the game show host con man tax fraud in charge of the White House. I'm not going to go too deep down the rabbit hole here.

 

#2. When I'm talking about anti-Islamic bigotry among atheists, I don't mean all atheists, as should be obvious. It was challenged as to whether or not they exist or not. They do. Some of the most prominent "new atheists" (but not all!) criticize Islam in toto in particular in ways that they do not do for, say, Christianity or Judaism,  with no nuance or exception provided. I have provided several well documented examples of this. There are plenty more.

 

#3. Islam's record of religious tolerance over its history is far, far better than Western Christianity's in particular. There are entire regimes that were founded largely as Islamic which exhibited some of the greatest religious tolerance in the world. Islamic fundamentalism of the past 100 years or so has a very specific history which can't be boiled down to but also can't be separated from a response to Western imperialism, among other things. The "new atheist" critiques of it aren't just bad because they're particular to Islam, they're bad because, like many things about the new atheists, they're grounded in a particularly uncurious, studied ignorance.

 

If you want to go further on this, let's do it on another thread.

 

EDIT: It should go without saying, but before someone spits the dummy, of course there are instances of religious intolerance in Islam. I mean, no shit Sherlock. Authoritarian, xenophobic, pseudo-theological reactionary movements are springing up all over the globe right now (ah!, now we're back on topic!) Asking for all of Islam to answer for the actions of a particular murderous reactionary minority party in Pakistan is like asking Richard Dawkins to answer for the actions of the Khmer Rouge, or for that matter, asking Scandinavian peoples to answer for the homicidal dingbats in Charlottesville who claim to worship Odin as a white supremacist god. It's inherently a fool's question, though some make themselves deliberately foolish, apparently.

Edited November 5, 2018 by Ugly American

[Sidelight]

Meanwhile…

Three and counting from the five Kavanaugh accusers have confessed that they were lying.

It seems that this work of dark rhetorical fiction was imagined by partisan and angry Democrats. 

They set out to destroy a good man and his family and nearly did. Thankfully they failed.

 

[Joey J J Jr Shabadoo]

13 hours ago, Ugly American said:

 

#1. This is the thread about the game show host con man tax fraud in charge of the White House. I'm not going to go too deep down the rabbit hole here.

 

#2. When I'm talking about anti-Islamic bigotry among atheists, I don't mean all atheists, as should be obvious. It was challenged as to whether or not they exist or not. They do. Some of the most prominent "new atheists" (but not all!) criticize Islam in toto in particular in ways that they do not do for, say, Christianity or Judaism,  with no nuance or exception provided. I have provided several well documented examples of this. There are plenty more.

 

#3. Islam's record of religious tolerance over its history is far, far better than Western Christianity's in particular. There are entire regimes that were founded largely as Islamic which exhibited some of the greatest religious tolerance in the world. Islamic fundamentalism of the past 100 years or so has a very specific history which can't be boiled down to but also can't be separated from a response to Western imperialism, among other things. The "new atheist" critiques of it aren't just bad because they're particular to Islam, they're bad because, like many things about the new atheists, they're grounded in a particularly uncurious, studied ignorance.

 

If you want to go further on this, let's do it on another thread.

 

EDIT: It should go without saying, but before someone spits the dummy, of course there are instances of religious intolerance in Islam. I mean, no shit Sherlock. Authoritarian, xenophobic, pseudo-theological reactionary movements are springing up all over the globe right now (ah!, now we're back on topic!) Asking for all of Islam to answer for the actions of a particular murderous reactionary minority party in Pakistan is like asking Richard Dawkins to answer for the actions of the Khmer Rouge, or for that matter, asking Scandinavian peoples to answer for the homicidal dingbats in Charlottesville who claim to worship Odin as a white supremacist god. It's inherently a fool's question, though some make themselves deliberately foolish, apparently.

Re #2 I haven't experienced this. In my opinion they are just atheists.

[Jamboelite]

6 hours ago, alfajambo said:

Meanwhile…

 

Three and counting from the five Kavanaugh accusers have confessed that they were lying.

 

It seems that this work of dark rhetorical fiction was imagined by partisan and angry Democrats. 

 

They set out to destroy a good man and his family and nearly did. Thankfully they failed.

 

 

 

Where  is the source of this ?? I can see that one has allegedly stated she made it up but dont see where the other 2 are coming from ?

Edited November 5, 2018 by Jamboelite

[Sharpie]

10 minutes ago, Jamboelite said:

Where  is the source of this ?? I can see that one has allegedly stated she made it up but dont see where the other 2 are coming from ?

 

I had the same result could only find one person. The Republicans had the power to have the F.B.I conduct a full investigation and instead had a sham one which only allowed a few days. A cynic such as myself would think that was because they were concerned about what may have come out. I am sure the woman concerned now is a fine person and just like the president will tell the truth when she c an.

The more I read from you Alfa buddy the more I have concern for you, how can a man of your religious beliefs be so fast to defend and support a man who betrays every one of the rules which are there to maintain the concepts of your belief. It is really a puzzle.

[Maple Leaf]

Well, tomorrow will tell us what the American electorate think about the two years of Trump's presidency.

 

Consider the following:

- three highly critical books written about chaos in the WH

- Trump has been proven to be an unashamed, repetitive liar

- there have been dozens of indictments and jail terms for Trump associates

- Trump has said that there are good people among white supremacists chanting "Jews will not replace us"

- he has taken children from illegal immigrants and kept them in cages

- his family continues to gain financially from his Presidency, which violates the Constitution

- he takes sole credit for an economic boom that started seven years before he was elected  

 

Tens of millions of Americans will vote in favour of Trump's Republicans tomorrow.  This time, they can't claim "better Trump than Clinton".  Why are they doing it?

 

[Francis Albert]

3 minutes ago, Maple Leaf said:

Well, tomorrow will tell us what the American electorate think about the two years of Trump's presidency.

 

Consider the following:

- three highly critical books written about chaos in the WH

- Trump has been proven to be an unashamed, repetitive liar

- there have been dozens of indictments and jail terms for Trump associates

- Trump has said that there are good people among white supremacists chanting "Jews will not replace us"

- he has taken children from illegal immigrants and kept them in cages

- his family continues to gain financially from his Presidency, which violates the Constitution

- he takes sole credit for an economic boom that started seven years before he was elected  

 

Tens of millions of Americans will vote in favour of Trump's Republicans tomorrow.  This time, they can't claim "better Trump than Clinton".  Why are they doing it?

 

In part at least because of the absurdly OTT witch hunt since he took office.

And the pathetical weakness of any serious or  credible opposition to him.

Edited November 5, 2018 by Francis Albert

[Watt-Zeefuik]

1 hour ago, Maple Leaf said:

Well, tomorrow will tell us what the American electorate think about the two years of Trump's presidency.

 

Consider the following:

- three highly critical books written about chaos in the WH

- Trump has been proven to be an unashamed, repetitive liar

- there have been dozens of indictments and jail terms for Trump associates

- Trump has said that there are good people among white supremacists chanting "Jews will not replace us"

- he has taken children from illegal immigrants and kept them in cages

- his family continues to gain financially from his Presidency, which violates the Constitution

- he takes sole credit for an economic boom that started seven years before he was elected  

 

Tens of millions of Americans will vote in favour of Trump's Republicans tomorrow.  This time, they can't claim "better Trump than Clinton".  Why are they doing it?

 

 

The depressing conclusion a lot of us have come to is that the bit in bold gets to the answer to your question.

[Sidelight]

4 hours ago, Jamboelite said:

Where  is the source of this ?? I can see that one has allegedly stated she made it up but dont see where the other 2 are coming from ?

My mistake, I read the article incorrectly.

Third accuser comes forward to admit lying…

This refers to the third in sequence chronologically who made claims.

[alwaysthereinspirit]

I’m in DC all this week visiting my daughter at school.

Should be pretty interesting tomorrow/Wednesday after the count comes in.

I think Republicans will hold the Senate if not strengthen.

House tougher to call as they’re more locally connected to voters and what their everyday issues are.  

My state will stay the same as normal. My only hope is that Warren only gets about 55/60% of the votes to let her know a presidential run will be futile.

Couldnt imagine listening to that screaming banshee on TV for 18 months.

[Ulysses]

6 hours ago, Barack said:

Well, I've trawled through a fair amount online about this. What I could find, is below. Mostly Trump rhetoric.

 

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/11/3/18058832/judy-munro-leighton-brett-kavanaugh-trump-tweet

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6352481/Georgia-crowd-chants-Lock-Trump-rips-woman-lied-raped-Kavanaugh.html

 

 

And...for balance...FOX.  Though, even they don't mention three people admitting guilt...

 

 

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/gutfeld-on-kavanaughs-false-accuser

 

 

 

It looks like we have a "christian" on our hands who didn't bother reading his "good book", specifically the bit that references the "ten commandments".

 

Quelle sur-****ing-prise, eh?

[Ulysses]

4 hours ago, Barack said:

Not sure it showed us what the electorate thought of Obama's Presidency, in truth. 

 

Aside from that, there'll be decent Democrat gains, I think most can see that. Probably not the Senate though.

 

The public can vote to have a majority, to put the brakes on any outlandish policy wishing to be passed, just like what happened to Obama.

However, it'll matter not a iota, should these Mid-term, probable anti-Trump votes, not crystalise immediately into a credible Democrat candidate to stop...(and at this moment in time I still think he will be re-elected)Trump's 2nd term.

 

As FA has said, & I agree, I can't see a single, viable person, capable. Well, I can...but he's had his chance...

 

22 minutes ago, alwaysthereinspirit said:

I’m in DC all this week visiting my daughter at school.

Should be pretty interesting tomorrow/Wednesday after the count comes in.

I think Republicans will hold the Senate if not strengthen.

House tougher to call as they’re more locally connected to voters and what their everyday issues are.  

My state will stay the same as normal. My only hope is that Warren only gets about 55/60% of the votes to let her know a presidential run will be futile.

Couldnt imagine listening to that screaming banshee on TV for 18 months.

 

I'd say that the Democrats will lose 1 Senate seat, putting them on 48 (in effect), but that is so hard to call because on a bad night they could lost another 4.  I'd also speculate that they'll end up with 219 or 220 seats in the House, giving them a bare majority (but a gain of 25-26 seats).  And I'm also guessing that they'll have a net gain of 6 or 7 Governors (this last one could be the most important in shaping the electoral landscape through to 2030).

 

As to Barack's point about not yet seeing a Democrat candidate: If you look back over the last 30 years or so, it's not that uncommon.  The potential Republican candidates have tended to show form before their Democrat counterparts, and you often don't get a sense of the emerging Democrat candidate until the race officially gets under way.

[ri Alban]

7 hours ago, alwaysthereinspirit said:

I’m in DC all this week visiting my daughter at school.

Should be pretty interesting tomorrow/Wednesday after the count comes in.

I think Republicans will hold the Senate if not strengthen.

House tougher to call as they’re more locally connected to voters and what their everyday issues are.  

My state will stay the same as normal. My only hope is that Warren only gets about 55/60% of the votes to let her know a presidential run will be futile.

Couldnt imagine listening to that screaming banshee on TV for 18 months.

Trump supporter 

[ri Alban]

7 hours ago, Barack said:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/05/media/nbc-trump-immigration-ad/index.html

 

"Trump on racist ad: 'I don't know about it'

Trump is asked about news organizations and Facebook pulling his racist immigration ad. “I don’t know about it,” he says, explaining, “we have a lot of ads” and “a lot of things are offensive”.

 

Even FOX won't run it. Because...it's hard to even defend that.

 

As an add-on to always' post about Warren:

 

https://amp.businessinsider.com/trump-2020-poll-president-would-lose-against-every-democrat-woman-touted-2018-11

 

 

Michelle has to do her duty and run in 2020. Landslide and the humiliation Trump deserves. He probably wouldn't run against her, just in case. 

[Watt-Zeefuik]

7 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

 

I'd say that the Democrats will lose 1 Senate seat, putting them on 48 (in effect), but that is so hard to call because on a bad night they could lost another 4.  I'd also speculate that they'll end up with 219 or 220 seats in the House, giving them a bare majority (but a gain of 25-26 seats).  And I'm also guessing that they'll have a net gain of 6 or 7 Governors (this last one could be the most important in shaping the electoral landscape through to 2030).

 

As to Barack's point about not yet seeing a Democrat candidate: If you look back over the last 30 years or so, it's not that uncommon.  The potential Republican candidates have tended to show form before their Democrat counterparts, and you often don't get a sense of the emerging Democrat candidate until the race officially gets under way.

 

Based simply on how nerve wracking and sadistic the election cycle in general has been the past couple of decades, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if the Dems get to 50 seats (including the two Is in New Englands), and the Mississippi special election goes to runoff, so we have to wait until December to find out who's going to control the chamber.

 

Being serious, beyond the House (which should go Democratic, or else as almost all of my friends agree, we disband the party and start over), no one has a clue right now. The electorate is shifting wildly thanks to the arrival of millennials at ages when young people start to vote more often and Trump's demagoguery. All of the pollsters are trying desperately to figure out a turnout model but nobody's sure who's going to turn up to vote, and since millennials famously don't have traditional "land line" phones and don't pick up unfamiliar numbers, polling young adults is even more skewed than normal.

 

I have hope that the Dems have a better shot at the Senate than even good polling suggests, based simply on this: since 2016, Democrats have overperformed the polls ins special elections, largely due to turnout surges. Early voting is at its highest levels ever in almost half of the states, which could mean nothing or could be a sign of a turnout surge. 

 

For an early indication, watch the Georgia governor's election. The polls say it will be razor thin. If either candidate wins big, that party is going to have a good night. If Abrams runs away with Georgia and Gillum runs away with Florida, we're in for a 1994-in-reverse kind of election, which I don't even dare to hope for at this point. If they both show disappointing results, most likely result is the Democrats narrowly win the House and the GOP picks up Senate seats.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

7 hours ago, Ulysses said:

As to Barack's point about not yet seeing a Democrat candidate: If you look back over the last 30 years or so, it's not that uncommon.  The potential Republican candidates have tended to show form before their Democrat counterparts, and you often don't get a sense of the emerging Democrat candidate until the race officially gets under way.

 

Oh, and yes to all of this. On election night in 1990 almost nobody outside of the hard core political junkies had any idea who some hick governor named William Jefferson Clinton was. On election night in 2002 the Democratic frontrunner for the nomination was Joe Lieberman (ugh). In 2006 Barack Obama was a guy who'd given one great speech two years before while winning a basically uncontested Senate election who would never make it out of the Iowa primaries.