| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And yes I did just make godzilla a verb
Too anime! Too anime!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The debates are over. Hillary won all three debates. The election is over. Trump has lost. Its all really over now.
It's not over until the election results are certified. It's not over until the obstructionist party is deprived it's majority in Congress.
But most importantly of all. It's not over until such a hateful person can't run for office and expect the support that this one got. Because that's the real problem... not that Trump is running for office, but that nearly half the country seems to want him there.
Mormons tend to be better-educated, and they have a lot of experience with talk about religious bans (they used to be targeted by them). They're also twice as likely as evangelicals to say that immigration is good for the country. As I understand it, the bigotry Trump spouts makes them very uncomfortable—and unlike the majority of evangelicals, they don't tend to see that as an acceptable flaw in a candidate.Agreed. The Mormons I've known have been friendly, respectful people.
And to be brutally honest, their beliefs are supported by exactly as much empirical evidence as are the beliefs of "mainstream" Christianity.
On the other hand, the Mormons continue to excommunicate women for advocating equal rights. They continue to hold anti-equality postions for women, they discrimminate according to sexual orientation, oppose the rights to LGBTQ marriage, and deny the right of choice in matters of abortion. There have been an increasing enough of mass exodus events because of the continued repressiveness of Mormon church doctrine.
And I'm pretty much equally skeptical of the beliefs of "mainstream" Christianity as well.
Yeah, I dislike the church, but individual Mormons can be fine by me precisely because of those exoduses.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wasn't planning to follow this thread, so I haven't read but the tiniest snippets of it, but I just had to jump in to post . Wish our presidential candidates could at least sing that much . . . How did Weird Al put this together so fast?
Pence may be hoping that a higher profile will help his future political career, eventually resulting in his own Republican nomination. Which is a pretty risky move IMHO, since it seems likely that if trump goes down he won't go down alone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@UnArcane: Posted that in the main thread earlier. XD And the answer is... professionalism. Weird Al has been making this kind of thing for a VERY LONG TIME, and I believe the other group with him specifically focuses on translating debates into song as quickly as possible. They might have even recorded some of it beforehand, and done the special effects, then picked the parts that matched the questions the candidates got.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wasn't planning to follow this thread, so I haven't read but the tiniest snippets of it, but I just had to jump in to post . Wish our presidential candidates could at least sing that much . . . How did Weird Al put this together so fast?
Because he's brilliant.
On the other hand, the Mormons continue to excommunicate women for advocating equal rights. They continue to hold anti-equality postions for women, they discrimminate according to sexual orientation, oppose the rights to LGBTQ marriage, and deny the right of choice in matters of abortion. There have been an increasing enough of mass exodus events because of the continued repressiveness of Mormon church doctrine.
Absolutely no argument here. The organization has some very hateful points-of-view. I actually think the mass exodus events speak well oft he people leaving.
And I'm pretty much equally skeptical of the beliefs of "mainstream" Christianity as well.
Oh hell yeah. I just often see them making fun of Mormon doctrine for being "crazy." Glass houses and all that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@UnArcane: Posted that in the main thread earlier. XD And the answer is... professionalism. Weird Al has been making this kind of thing for a VERY LONG TIME, and I believe the other group with him specifically focuses on translating debates into song as quickly as possible. They might have even recorded some of it beforehand, and done the special effects, then picked the parts that matched the questions the candidates got.
Weird Al has more talent AND skill than most of the artists he parodies. His whole band does. They are fantastic in concert.
If there is one complaint I could level at Weird Al, it would be at his undying love for the polka. :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The debates are over. Hillary won all three debates. The election is over. Trump has lost. Its all really over now.It's not over until the election results are certified. It's not over until the obstructionist party is deprived it's majority in Congress.
But most importantly of all. It's not over until such a hateful person can't run for office and expect the support that this one got. Because that's the real problem... not that Trump is running for office, but that nearly half the country seems to want him there.
It's going to take a couple years to recover from the damage Trump's campaign has done. It's let the worst of the worst feel like it's okay to be their disgusting hateful selves in public.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nope. Impeaching Trump just puts Pence in the big chair, and Pence is a full-on government dismantler with a big dose of hate for non-Christian, non-straight, non-white, and non-male people.Pence is the monster that realized a good disguise will get him a lot further, a lot longer than godzillaing around like Trump.
And yes I did just make godzilla a verb
Except the good disguise won't get him further than Trump, though he might stick around longer. Trump's the nominee. Pence couldn't get that far. None of the candidates trying to run in disguise could beat the one running full on crazy. That's the lesson of Trump.
Pence couldn't get the rotting fecal stink of Trump, The Bigliest Loser, off him if he had otyughs eat off all his skin. Trump Stink penetrates cell membranes easier than DSMO.
As much as I sympathize with your feelings... I feel like that may be a little further on the personal attacks than the moderators would prefer. o wo/ Perhaps we should simply say that once you've associated with Trump, it's hard to get free of that?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If anything, she didn't go far enough.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
As much as I sympathize with your feelings... I feel like that may be a little further on the personal attacks than the moderators would prefer. o wo/ Perhaps we should simply say that once you've associated with Trump, it's hard to get free of that?
Eh. If people Flag it and the Mods remove it, I'm fine with it. I'm a lesbian woman, so it's possible that my attempt at humor is overly harsh after all the horrible things Pence has done and said against women and LGBT folk as governor.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hey, remember the "Melania plagiarized speech" joke that Trump told the Al Smith dinner? The one for which he got his biggest laughs of the evening? Turns out... he (or his writers) plagiarized it too.
AH-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!
If Deadpool is the master of fourth-wall breaking, then Trump clearly now Inception-level plagiarism superpowers.
To quote myself, meh. It's a fairly standard joke structure. Pretty much anyone writing a joke on the subject would come up with the same joke.Hey, remember the "Melania plagiarized speech" joke that Trump told the Al Smith dinner? The one for which he got his biggest laughs of the evening? Turns out... he (or his writers) plagiarized it too.
AH-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!
If Deadpool is the master of fourth-wall breaking, then Trump clearly now Inception-level plagiarism superpowers.
I don't think it was plagiarized; it's not similar enough. Given the differences in wording, it looks like independent reinvention to me.
The structure of the joke, and a lot of the wording, is nearly identical. I remain suspicious.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The structure of the joke, and a lot of the wording, is nearly identical. I remain suspicious.
I'm not sure if Trump could stay on-script long enough to repeat an entire sentence word for word, so he might technically not be plagiarizing even stuff he meant to be plagiarizing.
Plus stealing ideas suggests that other people have ideas better than yours and worth stealing, and the very notion sounds contrary to everything he's ever said about his own ideas, which are the best ideas, and the biggest ideas.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Trump only cares about how people see him. He's fine with lying and cheating—that's kind of the whole problem here.
Also, I think that his joke was exactly as word-for-word as Donald Trump would be able to muster.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just assumed it was yet another example of Trump's Razor.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's going to take a couple years to recover from the damage Trump's campaign has done. It's let the worst of the worst feel like it's okay to be their disgusting hateful selves in public.The debates are over. Hillary won all three debates. The election is over. Trump has lost. Its all really over now.It's not over until the election results are certified. It's not over until the obstructionist party is deprived it's majority in Congress.
But most importantly of all. It's not over until such a hateful person can't run for office and expect the support that this one got. Because that's the real problem... not that Trump is running for office, but that nearly half the country seems to want him there.
More likely a couple of decades. The next few Republicans running will be smarter Trumps. I don't expect to live to see the damage undone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really do think that Trump represents the rise of a new GOP plurality. Move aside, evangelicals.
I just assumed it was yet another example of Trump's Razor.
That had better be safety. With green handles. And plastic.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really do think that Trump represents the rise of a new GOP plurality. Move aside, evangelicals.
Except... most of the 'evangelicals' are backing Trump. Other religious groups (e.g. Mormons and non-evangelical Protestants) that usually heavily back Republicans are actually leaning slightly for Clinton... but most evangelical protestants have stuck with Trump through everything and constitute a majority of his supporters.
Thus, if anything, 'evangelical' voters will have an even tighter grip on the GOP if it becomes 'the party of Trump'.
That being said, there is now a fair chance that this will be a monumental loss for the GOP... which would then likely result in significant changes to their propaganda strategy. Clearly, the "stupid party" has gotten too strong. They need to start exposing their partisans to snippets of reality again if they want to have any hope of controlling them.
I really do think that Trump represents the rise of a new GOP plurality. Move aside, evangelicals.Except... most of the 'evangelicals' are backing Trump. Other religious groups (e.g. Mormons and non-evangelical Protestants) that usually heavily back Republicans are actually leaning slightly for Clinton... but most evangelical protestants have stuck with Trump through everything and constitute a majority of his supporters.
Thus, if anything, 'evangelical' voters will have an even tighter grip on the GOP if it becomes 'the party of Trump'.
That being said, there is now a fair chance that this will be a monumental loss for the GOP... which would then likely result in significant changes to their propaganda strategy. Clearly, the "stupid party" has gotten too strong. They need to start exposing their partisans to snippets of reality again if they want to have any hope of controlling them.
The "stupid" party has about 40 percent of the electorate, so they're not going anywhere. It's the present establishment and corporate leadership that's going to find itself jettisoned. Because the Trumpy politicians dominate state and local elections in those carefully gerrymandered districts. So those folks aren't going away any time soon.
my understanding is that the evangelicals aren't terribly happy with Trump, at least the everyday voters. But because of Hillary's stance on abortion they are just sucking it up and voting for him.
Granted I expect the 2020 nominee to be a bit more evangelical friendly, so this years election probably won't represent any real movement away from republicans.
I think the republicans would rather have someone more friendly to everyone, especially if it goes down according to the polls.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the republicans would rather have someone more friendly to everyone, especially if it goes down according to the polls.
Than they'll sink just as hard as all of the other Republicans that were bowled over by Trump. Because the base instead of being discouraged by the fall of the orange volcano, are showing every sign of doubling down on thier extreme positions and attitudes... especially the no-compromise, take no prisoners mentality that dominates the GOP electorate.
The GOP establishment has only themselves to blame for the mess they're in now... they've spent decades with their media organs at FOX encouraging this very attitude.
The "stupid" party has about 40 percent of the electorate, so they're not going anywhere. It's the present establishment and corporate leadership that's going to find itself jettisoned. Because the Trumpy politicians dominate state and local elections in those carefully gerrymandered districts. So those folks aren't going away any time soon.
The "stupid" party may have the electoral votes, but they don't have the votes on the rules committee of the RNC, which is where policy decisions are made.
I've written elsewhere about how Trump is a product of the infighting in the 2012 election and the rules they wrote to make sure that a front-runner could lock down the nomination without the majority support of the electorate (or, for that matter, of the party bosses). If this election had been run by 2012 rules, or 2008 rules, Bush or Rubio would probably be the nominee today -- and it will be a fairly obvious fix for the RNC to "adjust" the rules by 2020 to keep the "stupid" party in the fold, but not actually give them much authority about who the nominee is, or even what the party platform looks like.
And, let's face it -- who are the "stupid" party going to vote for if not the generic, prepackaged Republican career politician? They won't vote for Clinton, and probably not for any Democrat. Faux News will see to that. The problem is longer-term. Eventually, they'll run out of angry white men.
my understanding is that the evangelicals aren't terribly happy with Trump, at least the everyday voters. But because of Hillary's stance on abortion they are just sucking it up and voting for him.
Granted I expect the 2020 nominee to be a bit more evangelical friendly, so this years election probably won't represent any real movement away from republicans.
As a somewhat evangelical Christian myself, it's interesting to be in the position of supporting a candidate who's for abortion over the one who... possibly isn't. (I don't really think Trump has positions so much as he has talking points - more so than most politicians, I mean.)
Don't get me wrong, that's a rather important issue (and a contentious one), but I still think there'd be less damage - and probably fewer corpses - in a Clinton presidency. There's really no good option in that context, but there is an option that's less bad.
"run out of angry white men"?
Yeah. That's what the long-term demographics of the United States are looking like.
Trump's supporters are whiter than the general population, and the percentage of whites in the United States is decreasing. There's a pretty good chart (and article) here. As the article points out (originatlly from 538), "In 1980, Ronald Reagan won 56 percent of all white voters and won election in a 44-state landslide. In 2012, GOP nominee Mitt Romney carried 59 percent of all white voters yet lost decisively. What happened? African Americans, Latinos, Asians and other non-whites — all overwhelmingly Democratic-leaning groups — rose from 12 percent of voters in 1980 to 28 percent in 2012."
More recently, 538 wrote "By 2044, the U.S. will be a majority minority nation. By 2060, 29 percent of the country will be Latino."
Similarly, Trump's supporters are older than the median, which means that they'll be disappearing one funeral at a time much sooner than Clinton's. The Republican party is well aware of this, which is why they stressed a need for outreach in their 2012 post-mortem.... but it didn't happen. It will, however, need to happen if the Republicans are to remain a viable party.
I really do think that Trump represents the rise of a new GOP plurality. Move aside, evangelicals.Except... most of the 'evangelicals' are backing Trump. Other religious groups (e.g. Mormons and non-evangelical Protestants) that usually heavily back Republicans are actually leaning slightly for Clinton... but most evangelical protestants have stuck with Trump through everything and constitute a majority of his supporters.
Not quite what I meant or how it works.
The evangelicals have always been a powerful group within the GOP, numerous and dedicated enough to force the whole party to sort of bow to their whims. That sounds negative, but it's just kinda how it goes. The thing about a plurality is that you don't actually have to represent the majority of the party—just be the biggest and most effective faction.
Of course evangelicals will vote for Trump. So will many fiscal conservatives. But neither group wanted him.*
If you think Trump rising to power represents the evangelicals possessing greater power over the GOP, I have to ask what you're smoking, because certain increasingly marginalized GOP factions do not approve. The evangelicals are miserable. They wanted someone like Cruz, and they got a Trump. Now they, just like the fiscal conservatives, are forced to vote for someone they don't actually like at all.
The fact that they will vote for Trump is not a sign of their continued dominance. It's a sign of their falling in line, bowing to the new plurality: The uneducated white nationalists.
*Of course, there were a few states towards the end where Trump actually beat Cruz for the evangelical GOP vote, but that could be a strike against Cruz as much as anything—and a mark of how certain a Trump nomination was starting to look at that point. Many evangelicals might have just stayed home, or voted to expedite the process. Or voted for Kasich and prayed for a contested convention.
Here's an alternative path. After Trump is crushed, his jabbering about "rigged" elections kills motivation among his people, kind of like how the heavily religious of the country stopped voting for a while after a couple of bad defeats almost a hundred years ago. The white nationalists become disillusioned with voting and go back to whining on Twitter.
Best-case scenario?
|
|
*Of course, there were a few states towards the end where Trump actually beat Cruz for the evangelical GOP vote, but that could be a strike against Cruz as much as anything
I'm sure that there's someone out there who wouldn't vote for Cruz because he's a non-white Canuckistani. (Doesn't being born in Calgary make him technically ineligible anyway? I have no idea how that works, actually, since McCain was born in Panama, and was also running for President...)
Oh, that's fairly straightforward. Generally speaking, if a child has two US citizens as parents, and at least one of them has physically resided in the US, they are automatically given citizenship at birth.
You only need one US Citizen as a parent to get automatic citizenship, even if you are born outside US territory
Oh, that's fairly straightforward. Generally speaking, if a child has two US citizens as parents, and at least one of them has physically resided in the US, they are automatically given citizenship at birth.
One U.S. Citizen as a parent.
It's not about being born in the US—it's about being born a US citizen. General consensus is that Cruz would've been fully eligible.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, fellow hoomahns, the Earth Senator Cruz hatched and pupated here in the rich loamy American soil, and is thus eligible. {waves tiny flag}
But how do we know unless we send someone to Kenya to double check it.
It's the only way to be sure.
♫♪ Kenyaaaa
Oh Kenyaaaa
Where the Giraffes are
And the Zebra
Kenya Kenya Kenya Kenyaaaa
Kenya we're going to Kenya... ♫♪
I know it's also possible with one parent. o wo/ It's just that I'm fairly sure McCain had two, so that's the regulations that applied in his case.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
My daughter has been blasting the Weird Al song all day. :-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why should YOUUUUUU run the SHOWWWW
Weird Al is eternal.