Cleveland RNC 2016


Off-Topic Discussions

301 to 350 of 446 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
CBDunkerson wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:

Unless I'm off the mark, Sharoth may be aiming at the greater concern of shared culpability by the two majority parties over time.

The 2016 election seems likely to result in another vapor-locked administration regardless of who wins. Congress doesn't get along all that well as-is, and they're none too fond of either candidate.

...

With the 2020 census coming up prior to that year's election it seems that election is going to be more important than 2016, especially if Trump somehow manages to win.

Not really.

The Republican party has controlled the Supreme Court since the 1960s. More than FIFTY YEARS now. That should have changed earlier this year, but the GOP controlled senate threw all semblance of just governance out the window to prevent it.

Based on current polls the most likely outcome of the upcoming election is that the Democrats will take the Presidency and the Senate (though not the House). That would allow Clinton to finally shift the balance of power on the Supreme Court. Combine that with executive actions which no longer get invalidated (regardless of precedent) 5 to 4 by the Supreme Court and the Democrats would be able to make slow and steady progress towards many goals that have been blocked for decades. On the other hand, if Trump wins then we may well have another 50 years of a right-leaning Supreme Court. That is a massive difference which will be decided by this year's election.

As to 2020... the important elections for that year are the STATE elections. Governors and state legislators. Those are the officials who redraw the district maps every 10 years. Nationally elected officials have nothing to do with it. Most of the relevant state officials who will be in office to implement the 2020 census will actually be up for election between 2016 and 2020. Ergo, the 2020 election will not be such a big deal for redistricting. That said, as Republican voters turn out more in off-cycle state election years, they...

All true, though the Supreme Court will also likely weigh in on redistricting - at least to strike down some more egregious plans.

And state house legislatures are (usually? always?) elected every two years, so that will matter in the 2020. As will the governors elected that year and this cycle as well as between then and now.

I'm not so sure the 2020 cycle won't be important for state control and redistricting. The Democrats dominated the 2006 & 2008 cycles, then got creamed in 2010. That hurt them very badly in redistricting after that census.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Ergo, the 2020 election will not be such a big deal for redistricting

Unless of course the judges get a case about the gerrymandering that is largely responsible for gridlock in politics.


Freehold DM wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Anecdotally, my girlfriend, known to the boards as La Principessa... lived in a section of Brooklyn called Windsor Terrace...
BROOKLYN BROOKLYN BROOKLYN BROOKLYN

BK represent!

Thank [insert favored deity or otherwise] that Trump is from 'that other borough'.


Would that be one near a sewage treatment plant? ;)


That would explain the birth of an ill-tempered, orange-haired, mutant gopher.


Most clearly...so, is Australia full yet? No. Good. Anyone want to by a nice house in Rochester, NY, USA, you can have it on the cheap...


Here is a good starting point for consideration.

If your skill set is on their SOL list, updated as of 1st July 2016, you have a shorter wait.

:) Interesting.


You don't say there Turin...interesting indeed...


If one is to entertain fleeing leaving a country, best to know how to most quickly go about doing so.

Sadly, my skill set is not on Australia's SOL list.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:

I've finally started to admit to myself that he might win.

I've considered it a possibility since he clinched the nomination. I got over the "voters are too smart to make that mistake" idea in 2004.


There are a couple similar articles out there, but this one had a good closing paragraph. Article from 2014.

Quote:
It’s entirely possible that the Republicans will nominate such a poor and unappealing candidate that these disadvantages will be outweighed by the Republican’s flaws, but assuming that they choose a reasonably competent and likable nominee 2016 could easily prove to be another disappointing year for Democrats.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GM_Beernorg wrote:
Most clearly...so, is Australia full yet? No. Good. Anyone want to by a nice house in Rochester, NY, USA, you can have it on the cheap...

As an aside, selling your home is pretty easy if you have a decent agent, presuming that the Rochester, NY market doesn't suck eggs.

Ugh, the Zillow pukes up there are morons. "Studios" are not pushing 4k square feet. *double facepalm*

On topic: an imgur post by a non-'Murican that brightens things nicely.


Turin the Mad wrote:


As an aside, selling your home is pretty easy if you have a decent agent, presuming that the Rochester, NY market doesn't suck eggs.

falls over laughing


Chris Ladd's resignation letter from the GOP


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:


As an aside, selling your home is pretty easy if you have a decent agent, presuming that the Rochester, NY market doesn't suck eggs.

falls over laughing

I know my market. I don't know Rochester's. ;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

With the wikileaks trove showing the DNC's unvarnished bias against Bernie I think Hillary's victory in November will be closer than it should have been. There really doesn't seem to be a lessor of two evils to vote for this time around. Still, we're doing better than South Sudan or Syria.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

She's always been a somewhat weak candidate, just speaking politically. That said, I refer to the ghost of Richard Nixon on this.

I'll be honest, this guy is the only major conservative voice I listen to these days. That probably says some things about me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

That you need to cut back on seances. Seriously man, save some votive candles for the rest of us.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, apparently searches for gay porn from Cleveland was up over 400 precent last week and Muslim porn got a 200 percent rise.

Trump porn also had a disturbing 600 percent boost.


Freehold DM wrote:
That reminds me, I totally have to steal her from you...

Gonna be hard to do while she's in Lowell.

You might have a chance on August 13th, though.


Trump is a strange fellow. His actions are often very much nicer than his words. His actions say, "I'm a meritocrat"; his stump speeches say, "I'm a ...". Well I can't type the last part since it would cause this post to be flagged.


What actions would those be?

Liberty's Edge

10 people marked this as a favorite.

The lying, the cheating, the defrauding of his business partners, customers, contractors and the tax payers. The inventing of multiple false identities to talk to the press while pretending to be someone else. The sexual harassment and alleged rape. The creepy lusting after his own daughter. The racism, the misogyny, the abelism, the casual cruelty and general douchbaggery. Let's not forget the temper tantrums, physical outbursts, and pathological need to be the biggest, most important person in the room.

I probably missed a few things.

Trump isn't a meritocrat. He's never had any cosideration for mertiocracy. He's a spoiled rich brat who's squandered the fortune his grandfather the pimp and father the racist landlord left him. He's an exploiter and con artisit.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Krensky wrote:

The lying, the cheating, the defrauding of his business partners, customers, contractors and the tax payers. The inventing of multiple false identities to talk to the press while pretending to be someone else. The sexual harassment and alleged rape. The creepy lusting after his own daughter. The racism, the misogyny, the abelism, the casual cruelty and general douchbaggery. Let's not forget the temper tantrums, physical outbursts, and pathological need to be the biggest, most important person in the room.

I probably missed a few things.

Trump isn't a meritocrat. He's never had any cosideration for mertiocracy. He's a spoiled rich brat who's squandered the fortune his grandfather the pimp and father the racist landlord left him. He's an exploiter and con artisit.

I will however agree that he's a strange fellow.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quark Blast wrote:
Trump is a strange fellow. His actions are often very much nicer than his words. His actions say, "I'm a meritocrat"; his stump speeches say, "I'm a ...". Well I can't type the last part since it would cause this post to be flagged.

“He wears a mask, and his face grows to fit it.” ― George Orwell


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pan wrote:


May I ask an honest question? Republicans are always trying to limit the size of government and control spending.

That's what they SAY, but in practice, what they DO is cut taxes on the rich, spend more money on military junk, starve the poor a little more, and run up the debt.

(The fact that Republicans ever managed to rebrand themselves as the "Party of Fiscal Responsibility" is one the greatest triumphs of PR over memory in my lifetime.)

(And I see I've been ninja'ed on both posts. Eh, I'll leave 'em up.)


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Sharoth wrote:
But honestly, I am neither Democrat or Republican. I just want someone competent in the office who realizes that BOTH parties are now the extreme end of the spectrum and over 90% of the people are in the middle.

You're kidding, right? By the standards of any country in Europe, the Democrats are Centre-Right to the Republicans' Far Right. There's a LOT of room in the political spectrum that only got airtime the the US this year when Bernie Sanders was speaking. (And from the turnout he got, there's a fair number of people who would LIKE an actual 'Left' choice.)


Arbane the Terrible wrote:
Sharoth wrote:
But honestly, I am neither Democrat or Republican. I just want someone competent in the office who realizes that BOTH parties are now the extreme end of the spectrum and over 90% of the people are in the middle.

You're kidding, right? By the standards of any country in Europe, the Democrats are Centre-Right to the Republicans' Far Right. There's a LOT of room in the political spectrum that only got airtime the the US this year when Bernie Sanders was speaking. (And from the turnout he got, there's a fair number of people who would LIKE an actual 'Left' choice.)

Yeah, we still never got a response on what he thought was so extreme about the Democrats. It's not an uncommon complaint, but I've rarely gotten a good answer.

Though it's also fair to point out that despite the turnout Sanders got, he still lost. There's demand, but it's not clear it's overwhelming.


Overwhelming demand should have resulted in greater voter turnout for the caucuses/primaries/dog-and-pony shows/whatever mechanisms were used. But then, based on the e-mail wikileaks dump, that the DNC was blatantly working against him seems to have had no small benefit to candidate Clinton in that regard.

While Sanders conceded, the convention hasn't actually started just yet. There is certainly possibility that the 2016 DNC could be just as ... unusual ... as the RNC was this past week.


I'm half-expecting Schultz to barge in and tell everyone to "vote their conscience".


Turin the Mad wrote:

Overwhelming demand should have resulted in greater voter turnout for the caucuses/primaries/dog-and-pony shows/whatever mechanisms were used. But then, based on the e-mail wikileaks dump, that the DNC was blatantly working against him seems to have had no small benefit to candidate Clinton in that regard.

While Sanders conceded, the convention hasn't actually started just yet. There is certainly possibility that the 2016 DNC could be just as ... unusual ... as the RNC was this past week.

Anything's possible. Especially about the future.

There's little reason to think that even with the Wikileaks, Sanders is going to try to cause trouble. There's no reason to suspect the tone will be anything like the hateful fear mongering we saw last week.


Ol' Orange Julius looked plastic and semi-terrifying during the RNC acceptance speech, all he was missing was the outlandish military uniform.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
I'm half-expecting Schultz to barge in and tell everyone to "vote their conscience".

DWS will appear with Alex Jones and Glenn Beck's blackboard to reveal Bernie Sanders is actually a sekrit Manchurian General Tsosian candidate for the multidimensional Sanders Corps.

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
GM_Beernorg wrote:
Ol' Orange Julius looked plastic and semi-terrifying during the RNC acceptance speech, all he was missing was the outlandish military uniform.

It was better in the original German.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Krensky wrote:
GM_Beernorg wrote:
Ol' Orange Julius looked plastic and semi-terrifying during the RNC acceptance speech, all he was missing was the outlandish military uniform.
It was better in the original German.

"I’ve heard this sort of speech a lot in the last 15 years and trust me, it doesn’t sound any better in Russian." — Garry Kasparov


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Bernie's response to the DNC favoritism was firm and classy. Think ya'll are getting the wrong candidate.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kryzbyn wrote:
Bernie's response to the DNC favoritism was firm and classy. Think ya'll are getting the wrong candidate.

It would've been much more classy if he'd also been firm speaking out against & disavowing his very vocal supporters who were harassing and threatening women in the Democratic Party.

As it is, we are getting the best of all the available Dem PotUS candidates.


thejeff wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:

Overwhelming demand should have resulted in greater voter turnout for the caucuses/primaries/dog-and-pony shows/whatever mechanisms were used. But then, based on the e-mail wikileaks dump, that the DNC was blatantly working against him seems to have had no small benefit to candidate Clinton in that regard.

While Sanders conceded, the convention hasn't actually started just yet. There is certainly possibility that the 2016 DNC could be just as ... unusual ... as the RNC was this past week.

Anything's possible. Especially about the future.

There's little reason to think that even with the Wikileaks, Sanders is going to try to cause trouble. There's no reason to suspect the tone will be anything like the hateful fear mongering we saw last week.

I don't expect Sanders will do any rabble rousing either. The voting public on the other hand will remember these shenanigans.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Turin the Mad wrote:


I don't expect Sanders will do any rabble rousing either. The voting public on the other hand will remember these shenanigans.

try saying cathirine harris to anyone and watch the blank stare. people have short memories.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:


I don't expect Sanders will do any rabble rousing either. The voting public on the other hand will remember these shenanigans.

try saying cathirine harris to anyone and watch the blank stare. people have short memories.

A scandal 10 years ago at the state level is not the same thing as events at the national level 3 months from now. ;) Presuming we're talking about the same person.

Edit: People in the general sense absolutely have come to suffer rather severe Short Attention Span Syndrome.


Turin the Mad wrote:


A scandal 10 years ago at the state level ....

To decided a national election for presidency, in a far more contested race, with far more favoritism shown.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:


A scandal 10 years ago at the state level ....

To decided a national election for presidency, in a far more contested race, with far more favoritism shown.

I thought you were referring to her scandal, not the presidential election scandal, which most people are not going to remember her for, but the Supreme Court.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Turin the Mad wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:


A scandal 10 years ago at the state level ....

To decided a national election for presidency, in a far more contested race, with far more favoritism shown.
I thought you were referring to her scandal, not the presidential election scandal, which most people are not going to remember her for, but the Supreme Court.

Except this is far closer to the Katherine Harris level of election rigging. Far less serious, as far as I can tell. No caging. No purging of voter rolls.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
What actions would those be?
Krensky wrote:

The lying, the cheating, the defrauding of his business partners, customers, contractors and the tax payers. The inventing of multiple false identities to talk to the press while pretending to be someone else. The sexual harassment and alleged rape. The creepy lusting after his own daughter. The racism, the misogyny, the abelism, the casual cruelty and general douchbaggery. Let's not forget the temper tantrums, physical outbursts, and pathological need to be the biggest, most important person in the room.

I probably missed a few things.

Trump isn't a meritocrat. He's never had any cosideration for mertiocracy. He's a spoiled rich brat who's squandered the fortune his grandfather the pimp and father the racist landlord left him. He's an exploiter and con artisit.

If he was as bad as all that he would have announced himself as the deserving winner of every episode of The Apprentice.

I agree that he suffers from NPD. He's like the type specimen for that. And as such I won't be voting for him.

Though, oddly, if he were to win he could in theory assign a cabinet that is actually competent. As opposed to filling it with people to whom are owed favors, like Mrs. Clinton will do.


thejeff wrote:
Except this is far closer to the Katherine Harris level of election rigging. Far less serious, as far as I can tell. No caging. No purging of voter rolls.

Not having a contentious election certified by your campaign manager...

Liberty's Edge

Quark Blast wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
What actions would those be?
Krensky wrote:

The lying, the cheating, the defrauding of his business partners, customers, contractors and the tax payers. The inventing of multiple false identities to talk to the press while pretending to be someone else. The sexual harassment and alleged rape. The creepy lusting after his own daughter. The racism, the misogyny, the abelism, the casual cruelty and general douchbaggery. Let's not forget the temper tantrums, physical outbursts, and pathological need to be the biggest, most important person in the room.

I probably missed a few things.

Trump isn't a meritocrat. He's never had any cosideration for mertiocracy. He's a spoiled rich brat who's squandered the fortune his grandfather the pimp and father the racist landlord left him. He's an exploiter and con artisit.

If he was as bad as all that he would have announced himself as the deserving winner of every episode of The Apprentice.

I agree that he suffers from NPD. He's like the type specimen for that. And as such I won't be voting for him.

Though, oddly, if he were to win he could in theory assign a cabinet that is actually competent. As opposed to filling it with people to whom are owed favors, like Mrs. Clinton will do.

Never mind that EVERYTHING I listed can be found with a cursory amount of research. Never mind that he apparently doesn't really want to be president since he offered all the actual policy work to Kasich with the VP slot and has presumably done the same with Pence. He's a liar, a cheat, and a scumbag. He lives in a reality free zone.


Quark Blast wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
What actions would those be?
Krensky wrote:

The lying, the cheating, the defrauding of his business partners, customers, contractors and the tax payers. The inventing of multiple false identities to talk to the press while pretending to be someone else. The sexual harassment and alleged rape. The creepy lusting after his own daughter. The racism, the misogyny, the abelism, the casual cruelty and general douchbaggery. Let's not forget the temper tantrums, physical outbursts, and pathological need to be the biggest, most important person in the room.

I probably missed a few things.

Trump isn't a meritocrat. He's never had any cosideration for mertiocracy. He's a spoiled rich brat who's squandered the fortune his grandfather the pimp and father the racist landlord left him. He's an exploiter and con artisit.

If he was as bad as all that he would have announced himself as the deserving winner of every episode of The Apprentice.

I agree that he suffers from NPD. He's like the type specimen for that. And as such I won't be voting for him.

Though, oddly, if he were to win he could in theory assign a cabinet that is actually competent. As opposed to filling it with people to whom are owed favors, like Mrs. Clinton will do.

I expect a Trump cabinet to be filled with sycophantic yes men. Competence optional.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Worse, if a bill or policy doesn't interfere with Trump's making money in office or step on his ego, he'll likely sign it. That could easily mean passing bills from the Far Right & "religious" Republicans in Congress, undoing all the progressive achievements, both major and incremental, going back to the New Deal. If that doesn't scare you, then you're probably a straight white Christian guy (or can fake it). Seriously, google the RNC 2016 platform; that's what a Republican-controlled Congress and a rubber-stamping Trump will pass.

While you're at it, google Trump's picks for SCotUS. Google what Pence did and tried to do in his own state. If that doesn't scare you, you must be immune to fear effects.


That presumes Trump won't hold his many grudges against Congress from the campaign trail.

'straight white Christian guy' describes a LOT of the voters who will not vote for Trump btw.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

As a straight white Christian guy, I have religious values like "love my neighbor" and "blessed are the merciful". I don't think Donald Trump represents the actual tenets of my faith in any meaningful way, and that's just one of the many reasons why I will not be voting for him. We can do better than electing someone because of demagoguery based on hate, fear, and lies.

301 to 350 of 446 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Cleveland RNC 2016 All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.