Donald Trump 2018

[Guest]

8 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Waiting? Republicans are shit. I've never said anything differently.

The fact that some of you are very briefly tempted to not be complete monsters doesn't impress me. As soon as a politically palatable representative is put on the ticket, you and your lot will gleefully strip regulations, slash welfare spending, dramatically increase the military, double down on the back-the-blue police state, oppose universal healthcare, and basically oppose every progressive agenda item conceivable.

Some of you expect high-fives for saying you'll vote for some Dems in 2018.

I'm so proud of you guys for being so dense it took Donald Trump to get you to temporarily notice how inhuman your entire political worldview is. Pardon me if I don't go running towards Lucy as she holds the football.

Hey fuckhead. I’m not voting Dems in ‘18. I didn’t vote Trump, and won’t in ‘20. A traitorous, petulant, orange child-buffoon and you both can eat my ass. 

[Celery Man 21076]

I suspect a large number of the people who are ditching the republicans are people who were socially at odds with the party to begin with. Or at least, the ones still hanging on are the social conservatives.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Trump is not going to like this tweet.

 

[David Dennison 19441]

10 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

Hey fuckhead. I’m not voting Dems in ‘18. I didn’t vote Trump, and won’t in ‘20. A traitorous, petulant, orange child-buffoon and you both can eat my ass. 

So . . . Gary Johnson?

[Newdoc 3508]

21 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

Hey guys sorry, was on an international flight and didn’t pay for the WiFi. Haven’t made it to the gale eagles country club yet to see any white friends to tell me how to think and feel; what have I missed in this thread?

Apparently, according to the Surly Cabal, there is an imminent threat of the T.A.R.M. (Trumpkin Alt Right Militia) 'Murican Division amassing outside some city, likely Austin (specifically Austin's Pizza on the drag), ready to unleash fury with their AR-15's against all homosexuals, minorities, non-Christians and any sort of libruals once Trump has either been impeached and/or turned over said 'Murica to Putin.

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Tuco said:

Both parties have done an excellent job of splitting the vote, give or take 10%, for the last 150 years. I don't think that will change. 

Seriously doubt it. I think Trump will singlehandedly cause an era of Dem dominance that will last 10 years. 

[Ghost of LL 15664]

1 hour ago, Gil Bang said:

Brisket and GOLL:  If you don't mind me asking, have either of you actually changed your registration to D?

We don't have registration in Texas.  I will tell you that I voted in the GOP primary in March because I was interested in some local judicial races, and the GOP primary in those judicial races is the election.  But I will further tell you that whereas four years ago I donated solely to Republican candidates, over the past two years I have donated solely to Democratic candidates.

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

How?

The answer to that question is actually important.

Hugo has repeatedly given you the step-by-step playbook, as recently as today.  I don't think I need to repeat it verbatim.

But tell me--even if you think the Republic muddles on in its current state, just how is your progressive policy agenda doing without us dreadful centrist kleptocrats?  You've not a single national base of power.  No majority in either house of Congress; a minority on the Court.  Fewer than ten states under unified Democratic control.

To get your progressive agenda passed into law, you're going to need Congressional approval and you don't have the votes.

[Loch Ness Monster 3533]

I'm legit terrified.

We have a Republican President that is doing Russia's bidding.

[MaybeACoordinator 8350]

4 minutes ago, Newdoc said:

Apparently, according to the Surly Cabal, there is an imminent threat of the T.A.R.M. (Trumpkin Alt Right Militia) 'Murican Division amassing outside some city, likely Austin (specifically Austin's Pizza on the drag), ready to unleash fury with their AR-15's against all homosexuals, minorities, non-Christians and any sort of libruals once Trump has either been impeached and/or turned over said 'Murica to Putin.

Not so worried about those fat fucks campaigning in the heat like Castro's army or them Cong muthafuckas, but they will tinker with chemicals in their air-conditioned garages a la Timothy McVeigh.  

[Anastasis 23699]

13 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Trump is not going to like this tweet.



 

When the Dems take over in 2018/20 are they going to rein in the executive branch such to ensure that we don't leave the kinda important things like waging wars, tariffs, treaty powers, immigration policy, etc. to the whims of the executive? Cause the abdication of the powers rightly delegated to Congress to the Executive is a core issue IMO, and that is some shit that I could get behind. I hope they do, but I don't hold my breath.  I do like Beto's position on a balanced budget amendment.  But I am afraid that that is an easy political position to take given that it won't go anywhere no matter which party is in power. 

[Skyline 325]

 

[Newdoc 3508]

1 minute ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

Not so worried about those fat fucks campaigning in the heat like Castro's army or them Cong muthafuckas, but they will tinker with chemicals in their air-conditioned garages a la Timothy McVeigh.  

More like a carport and more likely to blow themselves up than anyone else.

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

So . . . Gary Johnson?

Maybe. I didn’t vote last time. Whether I vote for a GJ type or don’t vote, it’ll make no difference. 

[bad_teammate 13479]

3 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

But tell me--even if you think the Republic muddles on in its current state, just how is your progressive policy agenda doing without us dreadful centrist kleptocrats? 

Progressive policies are very popular. All we need is progressive politicians to run on the platform without shame and people will support those policies happily.

Quote

You've not a single national base of power.  No majority in either house of Congress; a minority on the Court.  Fewer than ten states under unified Democratic control.

To get your progressive agenda passed into law, you're going to need Congressional approval and you don't have the votes.

You're confusing your arguments. The way for the Democrats to win back control is to move left and adopt and actually promote a progressive agenda of very popular policy ideas like universal healthcare, free college, and legalized marijuana.

The Democratic Party is at war (as all parties always are) between the Hillary/DCCC/monied-centrists/media establishment and the progressive populists. All of these 2018-only virtue-signal-voters who are outraged by Trump's vulgarity (but not his policies) strengthen Hillary's side of the party and prevent the necessary leftward progressive policies we need to truly strengthen the nation.

But speaking of votes, do you want Trump impeached? If so, why are you abandoning the party that can actually impeach him? What is it you want the Democrats to do post-2018?

[Mojo Hand 4580]

6 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

When the Dems take over in 2018/20 are they going to rein in the executive branch such to ensure that we don't leave the kinda important things like waging wars, tariffs, treaty powers, immigration policy, etc. to the whims of the executive? Cause the abdication of the powers rightly delegated to Congress to the Executive is a core issue IMO, and that is some shit that I could get behind. I hope they do, but I don't hold my breath.  I do like Beto's position on a balanced budget amendment.  But I am afraid that that is an easy political position to take given that it won't go anywhere no matter which party is in power. 

No, nobody is going to do jack shit about that.   It will remain up to the voters to choose a worthy president. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

I just want to see a Trump Trial in the Senate.

The ratings would be huge!

[Anastasis 23699]

Just now, Mojo Hand said:

No, nobody is going to do jack shit about that.   It will remain up to the voters to choose a worthy president. 

[Ghost of LL 15664]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Progressive policies are very popular. All we need is progressive politicians to run on the platform without shame and people will support those policies happily.

 

Yes--so popular, in fact, that such policies do not even attain majority support within the Democratic Party.  So popular that only a minority of the Democratic caucus in either house of Congress supports such policies.

Yes--you're doing a splendid job of passing your agenda.  Tell me, as the permanent minority party pursuing policies favored by a minority of voters and a minority of legislators, how exactly do you expect to get anything passed?

You see, I can count votes, and you don't have the votes.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

9 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

When the Dems take over in 2018/20 are they going to rein in the executive branch such to ensure that we don't leave the kinda important things like waging wars, tariffs, treaty powers, immigration policy, etc. to the whims of the executive? Cause the abdication of the powers rightly delegated to Congress to the Executive is a core issue IMO, and that is some shit that I could get behind. I hope they do, but I don't hold my breath.  I do like Beto's position on a balanced budget amendment.  But I am afraid that that is an easy political position to take given that it won't go anywhere no matter which party is in power. 

Elect better candidates that want to get your shit done.  Join or support movements for your causes if they’re important enough to you. Talk to your elected officials about your concerns. Political will takes actual will.  

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Progressive policies are very popular. All we need is progressive politicians to run on the platform without shame and people will support those policies happily.

You're confusing your arguments. The way for the Democrats to win back control is to move left and adopt and actually promote a progressive agenda of very popular policy ideas like universal healthcare, free college, and legalized marijuana.

The Democratic Party is at war (as all parties always are) between the Hillary/DCCC/monied-centrists/media establishment and the progressive populists. All of these 2018-only virtue-signal-voters who are outraged by Trump's vulgarity (but not his policies) strengthen Hillary's side of the party and prevent the necessary leftward progressive policies we need to truly strengthen the nation.

But speaking of votes, do you want Trump impeached? If so, why are you abandoning the party that can actually impeach him? What is it you want the Democrats to do post-2018?

Progressive policies are not at all popular. Your ideas are frightening. 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

13 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

We don't have registration in Texas.  I will tell you that I voted in the GOP primary in March because I was interested in some local judicial races, and the GOP primary in those judicial races is the election.  But I will further tell you that whereas four years ago I donated solely to Republican candidates, over the past two years I have donated solely to Democratic candidates.

Hugo has repeatedly given you the step-by-step playbook, as recently as today.  I don't think I need to repeat it verbatim.

But tell me--even if you think the Republic muddles on in its current state, just how is your progressive policy agenda doing without us dreadful centrist kleptocrats?  You've not a single national base of power.  No majority in either house of Congress; a minority on the Court.  Fewer than ten states under unified Democratic control.

To get your progressive agenda passed into law, you're going to need Congressional approval and you don't have the votes.

Actually, he would be better off letting the country split apart and then moving to the east or west coasts where new progressive unions would form that would eventually enter into labor and customs unions with the EU and Canada, and would have European style social democracy.

Otherwise, the saved republic is still a clusterfuck made up of a few states that want Christian sharia, a few that want libertarianism, and a few that want to be progressive. Together, you will always get what we have now. Even if we dump Trump, we will never be a cohesive nation. Its even questionable to say that we ever were even though we have managed to come together a few times in our history. The information age has simply inflamed divisions that were always there, and most of this shit is still left over from the civil war 150 years ago. 

[Js1 86940]

13 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Progressive policies are very popular. All we need is progressive politicians to run on the platform without shame and people will support those policies happily.

You're confusing your arguments. The way for the Democrats to win back control is to move left and adopt and actually promote a progressive agenda of very popular policy ideas like universal healthcare, free college, and legalized marijuana.

The Democratic Party is at war (as all parties always are) between the Hillary/DCCC/monied-centrists/media establishment and the progressive populists. All of these 2018-only virtue-signal-voters who are outraged by Trump's vulgarity (but not his policies) strengthen Hillary's side of the party and prevent the necessary leftward progressive policies we need to truly strengthen the nation.

THANK. YOU. 

But instead we have to listen to the former Republicans and “centrists” tell the left what to do to win. 

Edited July 18, 2018 by Js1

[Anastasis 23699]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Elect better candidates that want to get your shit done.  Join or support movements for your causes if they’re important enough to you. Talk to your elected officials about your concerns. Political will takes actual will.  

That's your response to my question as to whether the Dems will tackle any of the issues that I see as core and important?  You need to take a course in proselytizing 101, rather than try to key me in on the way that politics really works in this country.  

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

You’re just trolling as usual.  Taking your stabs at the left like you always do because it will draw the most reaction.

[TexArcher 38816]

It'll be interesting to see the fat con's approval rating in a month or so.  How much of the "Murica!" crowd is this actually going to cost him?

[FondrenRoad 4378]

5 minutes ago, TexArcher said:

It'll be interesting to see the fat con's approval rating in a month or so.  How much of the "Murica!" crowd is this actually going to cost him?

None. He could have straight up knelt before Putin and he wouldn't lose his base. When he is done in 2020, his base will still exist. 

[Anastasis 23699]

10 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

You’re just trolling as usual.  Taking your stabs at the left like you always do because it will draw the most reaction.

Right, cause asking if the Democrats are going to do anything about the very things that they complain loudly about during the current administration, namely an out of control executive branch that has usurped Congressional power related to the issuance of tariffs, immigration policy, war making, and treaty obligations is trolling. But thanks for letting me know how politics in this country works. BTW, those criticisms are not issued squarely at the left.  They are issued to the out of power party that crows quite a bit about those issues at the moment.  And when they gain power, they will grow rather silent on them, while the formerly in power party will amplify them. Rinse and repeat. I've seen the cycle play out 3 or 4 times in my politically aware life. I've issued the same criticisms against both right and left for nearly two decades on horn political boards, while you were still stiffing Tiger Farts on the board that ran you off.  

Edited July 18, 2018 by Anastasis

[Js1 86940]

8 minutes ago, TexArcher said:

It'll be interesting to see the fat con's approval rating in a month or so.  How much of the "Murica!" crowd is this actually going to cost him?

71% of Republicans approve of the Putin summit

 

[TexArcher 38816]

3 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

None. He could have straight up knelt before Putin and he wouldn't lose his base. When he is done in 2020, his base will still exist. 

I'm afraid this is right, or very close to it.  I expect his approval to drop by a small amount, maybe 2 or 3%, but I also think he'll win them back in short order.

About 30 to 40% of this country is irredeemably stupid.

[Brisketexan 106619]

I'm afraid this is right, or very close to it.  I expect his approval to drop by a small amount, maybe 2 or 3%, but I also think he'll win them back in short order.
About 30 to 40% of this country is irredeemably stupid.

Your numbers are likely dead-on.

[Gil Bang 26176]

38 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

We don't have registration in Texas.  I will tell you that I voted in the GOP primary in March because I was interested in some local judicial races, and the GOP primary in those judicial races is the election.  But I will further tell you that whereas four years ago I donated solely to Republican candidates, over the past two years I have donated solely to Democratic candidates.

Hugo has repeatedly given you the step-by-step playbook, as recently as today.  I don't think I need to repeat it verbatim.

But tell me--even if you think the Republic muddles on in its current state, just how is your progressive policy agenda doing without us dreadful centrist kleptocrats?  You've not a single national base of power.  No majority in either house of Congress; a minority on the Court.  Fewer than ten states under unified Democratic control.

To get your progressive agenda passed into law, you're going to need Congressional approval and you don't have the votes.

Thanks for the answer, and sorry to derail, but...I find it whacky as shit that judicial races are partisan.

Hell, I find it whacky that we vote for judges at all.  I suppose in a really small town, folks might know the judge...see him in the diner, go to church with him, whatever.  But in a town like San Diego, I can't imagine that any more than a handful of non-lawyers know any judges or judicial candidates. 

[Brisketexan 106619]

Thanks for the answer, and sorry to derail, but...I find it whacky as shit that judicial races are partisan.

Hell, I find it whacky that we vote for judges at all.  I suppose in a really small town, folks might know the judge...see him in the diner, go to church with him, whatever.  But in a town like San Diego, I can't imagine that any more than a handful of non-lawyers know any judges or judicial candidates. 

Almost all of us lawyers in Texas agree with your take. It’s stupid, and races are almost always decided on a party basis. And the percentage of folks who know ANYTHING about the candidates is pretty much equal to the percentage of the population that practices litigation.

I’ve seen plenty of good judges tossed out when a district has a party swing...and plenty of shitty judges elected because they have the right letter next to their name.

[MaybeACoordinator 8350]

4 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

Thanks for the answer, and sorry to derail, but...I find it whacky as shit that judicial races are partisan.

Hell, I find it whacky that we vote for judges at all.  I suppose in a really small town, folks might know the judge...see him in the diner, go to church with him, whatever.  But in a town like San Diego, I can't imagine that any more than a handful of non-lawyers know any judges or judicial candidates. 

Well we don't care what you nancy boys out in California think -- real Texans need to know if their JPs and misdemeanor court judges hate abortion and Nancy Pelosi and support daily Bible readings in school and a nearly unrestricted right to unlimited firepower. 

Edited July 18, 2018 by MaybeACoordinator

[bad_teammate 13479]

19 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Yes--so popular, in fact, that such policies do not even attain majority support within the Democratic Party.  So popular that only a minority of the Democratic caucus in either house of Congress supports such policies.

What does policy popularity within the citizenry have to do with policy popularity within parties? Parties are machines that serve the interests of powerful groups, not (necessarily) the voting masses.

The Hillary wing of the Democratic party is strongly beholden to powerful industry groups (Wall Street investment firms, big pharma/medical interests, etc...) and the powerful figures within that wing of the party act in those groups' interest against the popular will of the base voter. If the power dynamics within the party shift left/progressive and diminish the influence of those lobbyist groups, the base Democratic voter will happily support a more progressive/left Democratic platform.

Quote

Yes--you're doing a splendid job of passing your agenda.  Tell me, as the permanent minority party pursuing policies favored by a minority of voters and a minority of legislators, how exactly do you expect to get anything passed?

The same way everything gets passed regardless of its popularity in the citizenry; getting the votes in Congress.

As I am sure you are aware, tides of power shift and change. The Democrats will gain power at some point and, hopefully, the progressive wing of the party will be ascendant and working to sell progressive policies as the base Democratic platform. See: AOC and the like

Quote

You see, I can count votes, and you don't have the votes.

Why are you talking like Ignatius J. Reilly?

The votes that exist now are the votes that exist forever?

[4th&Five 41904]

This entire thread of videos is crazy. The motherfucker has no interest in telling the truth. Ever. It’s disgusting to see this glob of orange shit demean the office of President. 

 

[Kyrie Eleison 9312]

Well, it gave me flashbacks to my ex-wife...
"Honey, where is there a scrape on the driver's side door of the car?"
"I have no idea. Let's talk about how you got drunk and made an ass of yourself at Thanksgiving dinner in 1998."

you shouldn’t have tried to fuck her sister.

[Brisketexan 106619]

you shouldn’t have tried to fuck her sister.

I know.

He should have succeeded.

[MaybeACoordinator 8350]

4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I know.

He should have succeeded.

She didn't have one. One the other hand, my HS GF was a twin, and right before she dumped me, she and her (non-identical) twin pulled a switcheroo on me. I was fingering her before I found out what they had done, and that was as far as it went. I kinda freaked out. She was not as attractive as my GF but she was way better at making out. 

Meanwhile, GF was about to go to town with my best buddy. 

 

Edited July 18, 2018 by MaybeACoordinator

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

20 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Right, cause asking if the Democrats are going to do anything about the very things that they complain loudly about during the current administration, namely an out of control executive branch that has usurped Congressional power related to the issuance of tariffs, immigration policy, war making, and treaty obligations is trolling. But thanks for letting me know how politics in this country works. BTW, those criticisms are not issued squarely at the left.  They are issued to the out of power party that crows quite a bit about those issues at the moment.  And when they gain power, they will grow rather silent on them, while the formerly in power party will amplify them. Rinse and repeat. I've seen the cycle play out 3 or 4 times in my politically aware life. I've issued the same criticisms against both right and left for nearly two decades on horn political boards, while you were still stiffing Tiger Farts on the board that ran you off.  

Just asking questions and both siderism.

Maybe, just maybe the country is in the middle of a very painful political realignment and now is not the time to bitch about what the democrats may or may not do when in power.  

Mostly because the Russians are currently leading the Republican Party and happen to control all three branches of government.

Edited July 18, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Gil Bang 26176]

8 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:

This entire thread of videos is crazy. The motherfucker has no interest in telling the truth. Ever. It’s disgusting to see this glob of orange shit demean the office of President. 

 

Article 5.  All NATO members will defend a NATO member that's been attacked.  It's been used exactly 1 time.  9/11, when our NATO allies stepped up to help defend the USA

Fuck Trump, fuck FOX, and fuck anybody that defends or supports Trump (Tahoe, Slorch, et al). 

[Ghost of LL 15664]

Why are you talking like Ignatius J. Reilly?
The votes that exist now are the votes that exist forever?

The problem remains—your wing of the Democratic Party is in the minority. And the Democrats are out of power. You need friends. Yet you don’t want them. It’s an untenable place to be in a representative democracy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[FondrenRoad 4378]

A lot of Anastasis' complaints are Congress' fault. Presidential power is simply filling a vacuum that exists because Congress never does shit.  Congress can and should do their jobs and limit executive power, but they dont because the party in power in Congress likes the executive results. 

McConnell's nothing we can do, Trump will veto, let's pretend we cant override it, tells you all you need to know. 

Edited July 18, 2018 by FondrenRoad
Didnt quote

[MaybeACoordinator 8350]

1 minute ago, Gil Bang said:

Article 5.  All NATO members will defend a NATO member that's been attacked.  It's been used exactly 1 time.  9/11, when our NATO allies stepped up to help defend the USA

Fuck Trump, fuck FOX, and fuck anybody that defends or supports Trump (Tahoe, Slorch, et al). 

Is Tahoe banned, rolling as a sock now, or just gone? Did he clutch his chest and keel over in the Bama sun, dropping his last box of donuts on the sizzling sidewalk, while trying to formulate one last not-so-subtly racist "question"? 

[Brisketexan 106619]

She didn't have one. One the other hand, my HS GF was a twin, and right before she dumped me, she and her (non-identical) twin pulled a switcheroo on me. I was fingering her before I found out what they had done, and that was as far as it went. I kinda freaked out. She was not as attractive as my GF but she was way better at making out. 
Meanwhile, GF was about to go to town with my best buddy. 
 

Man....now I’m REALLY trying to remember your HS girlfriend...but I’m drawing a blank. Dammit.

[bad_teammate 13479]

3 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

The problem remains—your wing of the Democratic Party is in the minority. And the Democrats are out of power. You need friends. Yet you don’t want them. It’s an untenable place to be in a representative democracy.

If the left doesn't court country club white lawyer guys that means they don't want friends?

Your concern trolling is weak. That demographic will never support progressive left policy platforms.

[MaybeACoordinator 8350]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

Man....now I’m REALLY trying to remember your HS girlfriend...but I’m drawing a blank. Dammit.

You wouldn't know those twins. They were from Canada went to Kinkaid. 

[Prepuce of Doom 21260]

Jesus Fucking Christ, people. His goddamn name is "Bad Teammate" for crying out loud. 

~~~~~

 

[Brisketexan 106619]

You wouldn't know those twins. They were from Canada went to Kinkaid. 

I definitely believe your stricken language.

At least my unfortunate high school experience was with a real girl at the beach...from La Porte.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

1 minute ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

You wouldn't know those twins. They were from Canada went to Kinkaid. 

Those Canadian girls really got around in high school. At any given time, probably 3 times the female population of Canada are supposedly having summer flings with American high school boys. 

[Anastasis 23699]

5 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

A lot of Anastasis' complaints are Congress' fault. Presidential power is simply filling a vacuum that exists because Congress never does shit.

Fuck yes that's right. The first and foremost structural political issue at play right now is the over-extension of executive branch power resulting from a totally fucking worthless and dysfunctional legislative branch.  Article 1 is Article 1 for a reason. In a system with a properly constrained executive branch, and a functional congress, Trump is contained. The Paris climate agreement, executed as a treaty cannot be unwound by executive fiat.  The Iran deal is not unwound by executive fiat. Immigration policy does not become a matter of executive order, but one of duly implemented law, policies, and procedures. Trumps trade wars are avoided when Congress actually fulfills their Art. 1 Sec. 8 responsibility. The executive branch needs to have its wings cut, and Congress needs to stop being worthless cunts. Hugo can call that asking questions or bothersiderism or whatever. I call it the reality of our fundamental problem.