Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 05-07-2019, 04:06 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
No one is proposing any measures designed to keep candidates off the ballot. Force candidates to release their tax returns, sure -- but that's not keeping anyone off the ballot at all, any more than forcing candidates to collect signatures, or pay application fees, or any other administrative requirement.
I suspect the Supreme Court is going to see right through that "administrative requirement" fig leaf. What do you think?

And in case you actually think you're providing a solid argument here, then: 'No one is proposing any measure designed to keep voters from voting. Forcing voters to return a postcard, sure --- but that's not keeping anyone from voting, any more than forcing voters to register, or sign their name, or any other administrative requirement'
  #52  
Old 05-07-2019, 04:10 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,771
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
Hyperbole aside, if any elected official actually ate a live human baby on national television they would lose their jobs and go to jail or be executed. That's going way over the line. Have some faith in your fellow human beings.

Also the FCC would shut down the broadcast within seconds.
Eh, Ajit Pai (Chairman of the FCC) would probably say, "Sure, the Republican is eating the baby right now, but let's just see where this is going...."
  #53  
Old 05-07-2019, 04:11 PM
Wesley Clark is offline
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 21,693
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
I can't speak for other Republicans but I still think free and fair elections are of the utmost importance. When candidate Trump hesitated to say he would accept the results of the election during the debates, I correctly thought "he should not have hesitated." When he tweeted to the contrary (I don't remember if this was before or after), I correctly thought "he does not embody the principles I want our country to stand for".

I don't approve of his whining after Mr. Trump won the election. I would not approve of Mr. Trump's whining if he lost the election. Neither do I think other conservatives would, but my opinion is my own.

~Max
Part of the problem is that whites who score high on authoritarianism have almost all become republicans now.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/05/o...-contract.html

Quote:
The authors found that in 1992, 62 percent of white voters who ranked highest on the authoritarian scale supported George H.W. Bush. In 2016, 86 percent of the most authoritarian white voters backed Trump, an increase of 24 percentage points
And people who score high on authoritarianism do not respect things like science or democracy. So I really disagree about conservatives, I think most conservatives are content with the war on democracy going on. And now sadly the democrats are doing it too by trying to keep Trump off the ballot in blue states (which if the democrats pass the interstate compact, will make presidential elections very questionable). I wish the fucking SCOTUS would just overturn gerrymandering nationwide and congress could pass a new voting rights act. But thats not going to happen anytime soon.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #54  
Old 05-07-2019, 04:12 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Eh, Ajit Pai (Chairman of the FCC) would probably say, "Sure, the Republican is eating the baby right now, but let's just see where this is going...."
The idea that the FCC could react swiftly enough to "shut down the broadcast within seconds" is the most laughably unrealistic part of that whole hypothetical.
  #55  
Old 05-07-2019, 04:15 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 33,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
And people who score high on authoritarianism do not respect things like science or democracy. So I really disagree about conservatives, I think most conservatives are content with the war on democracy going on. And now sadly the democrats are doing it too by trying to keep Trump off the ballot in blue states (which if the democrats pass the interstate compact, will make presidential elections very questionable). I wish the fucking SCOTUS would just overturn gerrymandering nationwide and congress could pass a new voting rights act. But thats not going to happen anytime soon.
There's no point in hoping or expecting that Republican officials, or even Republican voters, will turn on monstrous/irrational/anti-Democratic behavior from Trump. And barely more from the SCOTUS, which becomes more of a discredited and possibly even irrelevant institution by the week, IMO. The only possibility of change will come from getting Trump and the party in his thrall out of power, and others in power. Even that's a relatively faint hope, considering how rotten our system and most of its players are, but at least there is some reasonable hope for a non-zero amount of honor and decency within the Democratic party (and its supporters) these days.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 05-07-2019 at 04:16 PM.
  #56  
Old 05-07-2019, 04:16 PM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is offline
You mean he's STILL here?
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 25,715
Quote:
Originally Posted by mozchron View Post
It will be the same as it was pre-Trump and current-Trump. Trump didn't change the Republican party. They have always been racist, sexist, ignorant, hypocritical, and as we have now seen, treasonous fools.
I say this as someone who cast his first vote for President in 1972 and has never voted for a Republican presidential candidate. I don't agree with you. Even post-1964 there were decent, honorable Republicans. They're just hiding because they fear they'll be primaried out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
+1 to this. I'm not really into identity politics, but it would be immensely entertaining if the first female president were a Republican.
Yeah, I suppose the Republicans could run Condoleeza Rice. She'll only be 70 in 2024, and I'll guess by then most voters would have gotten over her role in George W. Bush's foreign policy. On paper she'd be an incredibly appealing candidate.

But, starting right now, I will bet anyone on this board $100 American cash (or at least PayPal) money that if Condoleeza Rice ever runs for President, she will not have a first ballot majority of delegates going into the Republican Convention. Furthermore I will let the better choose whether to limit the results to all delegates, or only delegates from states with closed Republican primaries and caucases.

Sure, it's five years away, but I expect I'll still be alive. Who's up for a little action?

Who wants to predict what would happen to Trump's hard-core, never say die support if he replaces Pence with Rice on the 2020 ticket?
  #57  
Old 05-07-2019, 04:22 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by kunilou View Post
... Who wants to predict what would happen to Trump's hard-core, never say die support if he replaces Pence with Rice on the 2020 ticket?
I predict they'd vote for him again. Just curious, what do you think the overlap is between "Trump's hard-core, never say die support" and people who approve of Justice Clarence Thomas?
  #58  
Old 05-07-2019, 04:23 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 12,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
LOL! One minute prior to this post, you wrote "Complaints about republican potential for criminal activity is not to be refuted with counterarguments, but by pointing at the dems and calling them criminals!""

Literally one minute later you adopt the strategy you just decried, responding to an accusation of Democrats misdeeds, not with counterarguments, but by pointing at the Republicans.
I feel bad insulting you by assuming you didn't realize this, but I was merely continuing your statement to say what I believe you sincerely think. The ellipsis should have been your first clue.


But I'll concede, I'm not terribly worried about the mote in the democrats' collective eye, because they're not trying to keep Trump off the ballot and anyone who says otherwise is either stupid or lying. What they're trying to do is force him to reveal that which he does not want to reveal. Why doesn't he want to reveal it? Hell if I know. Probably because crimes or something, but maybe just ego. But even if this law passed he could still take a simple action to qualify for the ballot and everybody who wanted to vote for him could. (Actually they could vote for him even if he wasn't on the ballot, but let's not complicated things for the poor simple souls.)

What republicans want to do is disenfranchise people entirely, robbing them of their right and ability to vote. But who cares about that, right?
  #59  
Old 05-07-2019, 04:27 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
... What republicans want to do is disenfranchise people entirely, robbing them of their right and ability to vote. But who cares about that, right?
I'm not terribly worried about the mote in the [Republicans]' collective eye
  #60  
Old 05-07-2019, 04:27 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 12,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I'm not terribly worried about the mote in the [Republicans]' collective eye
Yep.
  #61  
Old 05-07-2019, 06:10 PM
Max S. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 528
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
The idea that the FCC could react swiftly enough to "shut down the broadcast within seconds" is the most laughably unrealistic part of that whole hypothetical.
I had actually imagined they stationed someone at major broadcast centers and could, in an emergency, shut it down.

Boy was I wrong. That's the broadcaster who enforces the 7-second rule. Ignorance fought.

~Max

Last edited by Max S.; 05-07-2019 at 06:11 PM.
  #62  
Old 05-08-2019, 01:51 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,174
Maybe we can get back on topic.
  #63  
Old 05-08-2019, 07:04 AM
BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 21,179
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I'm not terribly worried about the mote in the [Republicans]' collective eye
You misspelled plank.
  #64  
Old 05-08-2019, 12:10 PM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is offline
You mean he's STILL here?
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 25,715
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I predict they'd vote for him again. Just curious, what do you think the overlap is between "Trump's hard-core, never say die support" and people who approve of Justice Clarence Thomas?
Don't know, don't care. I think the real question is how many people will never vote for a black woman for Vice President no matter how much they like the Presidential candidate. "Conventional wisdom" is that Dan Quayle's misspeaks hurt George H.W. Bush at least a little, and Sarah Palin cost John McCain more votes than she brought him.
  #65  
Old 05-08-2019, 12:47 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by kunilou View Post
... I think the real question is how many people will never vote for a black woman for Vice President no matter how much they like the Presidential candidate. ...
I submit that the answer is relatively few, at least among Republicans. There hasn't been a black female VP candidate yet, so we don't have direct evidence of it, but there's plenty of indirect evidence.

First, lets address the "woman" aspect of your question: You mentioned Sarah Palin. A Republican ticket with a female VP on it got almost 60 million votes in 2008, with the overwhelming majority of those coming from self-identified Republicans. It seems pretty clear to me that Republicans collectively don't have any major hang-ups about voting for a woman.

So what about "black"? It's true that the Republicans have not run a black VP candidate, but there have been black Republican candidates for other positions, and the Republicans have not seemed to be shy about voting for them in general elections. I could probably dig up some additional examples if you doubt this, but off the top of my head, the current Lt. Governor of Kentucky is a black female Republican and until the 2018 election, Utah had a black female Republican congresswoman (Mia Love).

If you've got some evidence to suggest that the number of people who "will never vote for a black woman for Vice President" is significant, I'd be interested in seeing it, but right now it looks like fiction.
  #66  
Old 05-09-2019, 10:23 AM
Dana Scully is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Dizzyland
Posts: 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boycott View Post
A recent poll shows ~90% of Republicans approve the job Trump has done. He has strong - somewhat sycophantic - support among Congressional Republicans. People like Lindsey Graham, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul who ridiculed him during the primaries of the 2016 election are now staunch defenders of his presidency and the president himself.

The Republican Party is the Party of Trump. But for how long?

The youth turn-out in 2018 helped the Democrats. Coupled with Democrats sweeping offices in states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan which twice went for Obama but switched to Trump in 2016, plus Red states like Texas and Georgia being a lot closer than usual, signs from the mid-terms could signal big trouble for Trump.

Suppose next year the Democrats regain the White House, the Senate and retain the House...that's quite a message from the American people. To boot out the sitting president up for re-election has just happened twice since Hoover. And if there is no wall, no healthcare reform, no immigration reform, will there be a reckoning within the party that a President Cruz will have done exactly the same things (tax cuts, conservative judiciary appointments, reducing regulations, repeal individual mandate of Obamacare) without all the bickering and polarisation? And Trump gets treated as an abberation?

The flipside is the economic numbers are very good and that can carry him for another four years. The recession some predicted hasn't arrived. And if he gets four more years to fulfill his campaign promises such as the wall will Trump be put on a pedastal for years to come like Ronald Reagan? A conservative deity who in twenty years time will be brought up in presidential debates as candidates try to compare themselves to, as they have done with Reagan for the last twenty years.
Actually, the FIRST question should be, will there be any Republican party left after what Trump's doing to it.
  #67  
Old 05-09-2019, 08:10 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 58,746
I have to figure post-Trump, the Republican Party average IQ will rise, because he is surely dragging them down a bit.

But more likely after his defeat in 2020 (inshallah), he will be loudly and perpetually yelling that his second term was "stolen" and if he isn't the nominee in 2024, it's because the Republicans have turned their backs on him and they'll be sorry! This will continue until he sooner-or-later dies (inshallah).
  #68  
Old 05-09-2019, 08:56 PM
Ukulele Ike is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 16,846
What makes you think he’s going to make it to 2024, and age 77? You see what he EATS, don’t you?
__________________
Uke
  #69  
Old 05-09-2019, 09:03 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 58,746
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ukulele Ike View Post
What makes you think heís going to make it to 2024, and age 77? You see what he EATS, donít you?
I expect he's made his children sign mandatory organ-donation contracts in case he needs them.
  #70  
Old 05-09-2019, 10:16 PM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is offline
You mean he's STILL here?
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 25,715
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
If you've got some evidence to suggest that the number of people who "will never vote for a black woman for Vice President" is significant, I'd be interested in seeing it, but right now it looks like fiction.
I have no evidence to support my statement, but I will offer my opinion that there is some portion of voters, who would never accept a black, a woman, or a black woman as President, and the thought of such a woman being "a heartbeat away" from being President is too much for them. It is also my opinion that while they are crazy nutjobs who, if they vote at all, vote for fringe candidates, some of them voted for Donald Trump. And those voters would find some fringe candidate to vote for if Trump chose a black woman as his 2020 running mate.

Whether we define that number of voters as "significant" is strictly opinion. But given how close the popular vote was in many states in 2016, it's my opinion that Donald Trump needs every vote he can possibly get.

You have your opinion, I have mine. As for 2024, my offer still stands for anyone on this board.

Last edited by Kent Clark; 05-09-2019 at 10:18 PM.
  #71  
Old 05-10-2019, 07:21 AM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,704
I'd actually be interested in any detailed forecast of next year's election from my conservative friends here because it would make for a good argument. Really, anything beyond "he surprised us once" would be great to read.
  #72  
Old 05-10-2019, 08:56 AM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,033
I see no reason Republicans would hold on to Trump in any way once he is out of the White House. Reading many posts on Facebook written by conservatives, they already have turned on Bush Sr., Bush Jr., McCain and Romney in such a way that you'd never have guessed that they were fervent supporters of them in the past. Once Trump is gone, his usefulness is absolutely gone as well. They'll firmly jump aboard with whomever is steering at the helm next - Tom Cotton, Ben Sasse or whomever.
  #73  
Old 05-10-2019, 10:03 AM
Max S. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 528
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Wiggler View Post
I'd actually be interested in any detailed forecast of next year's election from my conservative friends here because it would make for a good argument. Really, anything beyond "he surprised us once" would be great to read.
This isn't too relevant but it made me remember a Bushism (though I doubt Bush ever approved of Trump):
Quote:
Originally Posted by G. W. Bush
There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me - you can't get fooled again.
~Max
  #74  
Old 05-10-2019, 10:20 AM
Ukulele Ike is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 16,846
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
I expect he's made his children sign mandatory organ-donation contracts in case he needs them.
Probably planning on harvesting Barron first; heís the youngest and freshest.
__________________
Uke
  #75  
Old 05-10-2019, 09:43 PM
E-DUB's Avatar
E-DUB is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,502
Ever read "The Foundation Trilogy"? Remember what happened when The Mule died? That's what it will be like when trump goes. They will abandon their present form of insanity and revert to their prior form of insanity.
  #76  
Old 05-11-2019, 12:30 PM
The Tooth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 4,673
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I'm not terribly worried about the mote in the [Republicans]' collective eye
You support Republican disenfranchisement efforts if it means you get your way. Weird that a while back you declared yourself to be a patriot. I doubt you'd be as sanguine about the matter if roles were reversed and decent Americans were making efforts to disenfranchise right-wing scum.
__________________
"It would never occur to me to wear pink, just as it would never occur to Michael Douglas to play a poor person." - Sarah Vowell
  #77  
Old 05-12-2019, 12:21 AM
nelliebly is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Washington
Posts: 1,364
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
I think people are making an incorrect association between perceived competence and the ability to destroy democracy. Most authoritarians are incompetent when it comes to governing a country in ways that produce benefit for the masses; what they're competent at is in gaining power, and while Trump might not know shit about the Constitution, economics, history, and foreign policy, he knows a lot about power. He couldn't have been this successful at conning people for so long if he didn't know something about the human animal and its frailties.
Of course he could, and he has. Trump doesn't understand psychology or sociology. He doesn't know how to read people, really. He does know what his base likes, but that's mostly because his base mirrors his simplistic, pseudo-patriotic, ignorant views. He's been successful at conning people because when he was in the private sector, he hired the wiliest attorneys and the most brilliant toadies and told them what he wanted. Their job was to figure out how to make it happen. He doesn't know much about power and doesn't need to: he's got it, and his base is so infatuated (Call it narcissism.), they'll go along with anything he says or does.
  #78  
Old 05-12-2019, 06:44 AM
UnwittingAmericans is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
I see no reason Republicans would hold on to Trump in any way once he is out of the White House. Reading many posts on Facebook written by conservatives, they already have turned on Bush Sr., Bush Jr., McCain and Romney in such a way that you'd never have guessed that they were fervent supporters of them in the past. Once Trump is gone, his usefulness is absolutely gone as well. They'll firmly jump aboard with whomever is steering at the helm next - Tom Cotton, Ben Sasse or whomever.
John Bolton.

He's as belligerent and as big an asshole and liar as Trump. Not quite as crass and probably not as good with the tweets, but he loves bombs. He should be able to pick up the "America should quit getting pushed around" theme wherever Trump leaves off.
  #79  
Old 05-12-2019, 07:37 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Tooth View Post
You support Republican disenfranchisement efforts if it means you get your way. Weird that a while back you declared yourself to be a patriot. I doubt you'd be as sanguine about the matter if roles were reversed and decent Americans were making efforts to disenfranchise right-wing scum.
"If"? Left-wingers ARE trying to disenfranchise Republicans.
  #80  
Old 05-13-2019, 06:03 AM
The Tooth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 4,673
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
"If"? Left-wingers ARE trying to disenfranchise Republicans.
No they aren't. You support Republican disenfranchisement efforts if it means you get your way. Weird that a while back you declared yourself to be a patriot.
__________________
"It would never occur to me to wear pink, just as it would never occur to Michael Douglas to play a poor person." - Sarah Vowell
  #81  
Old 05-13-2019, 07:44 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Tooth View Post
No they aren't. ...
Yes, they are.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Tooth View Post
... You support Republican disenfranchisement efforts if it means you get your way. ...
I support some basic election security measures. I, like the vast majority of Americans, don't believe asking for an ID amounts to disenfranchisement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Tooth View Post
... Weird that a while back you declared yourself to be a patriot.
You've said this twice now, and I have no idea what you're talking about or why you interjected it here (again).

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 05-13-2019 at 07:45 AM.
  #82  
Old 05-13-2019, 07:53 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,771
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Yes, they are.
Wrong.

And this is really the snappiest debate response since "No YOU'RE the puppet!" Good work, man.

Last edited by Ravenman; 05-13-2019 at 07:54 AM.
  #83  
Old 05-13-2019, 08:17 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Wrong.

And this is really the snappiest debate response since "No YOU'RE the puppet!" Good work, man.
Over in another thread, you posted this not very long ago:



Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Except that the proposed laws are being examined for the precise purpose of keeping the current President off of the ballot. ...
Do you realize that that's the same point I have been making here, the one you just called "wrong"?


ETA: and it's worth mentioning that "wrong" is right up there with "yes, they are" and "no, they aren't" in quality of responses. Welcome to the club, pal.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 05-13-2019 at 08:20 AM.
  #84  
Old 05-13-2019, 08:31 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,771
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Over in another thread, you posted this not very long ago:


Do you realize that that's the same point I have been making here, the one you just called "wrong"?
That isn't voter disenfranchisement. You're clearly adopting Trump's tactic of making words mean nothing, just like how "fake news" used to be lies spread by Russian bots, and now Republicans use it to refer to unfavorable but truthful news coverage.

Nobody here is going to buy your attempts to misdirect this debate through sloppy use of the English language.

Quote:
ETA: and it's worth mentioning that "wrong" is right up there with "yes, they are" and "no, they aren't" in quality of responses. Welcome to the club, pal.
Also, nobody is falling for your "you have to provide cites to prove I'm wrong" schtick. We see though your little games: you post something and refuse to back it up, either out of laziness or trying to make the other side do more work to rebut your nonsense.

Last edited by Ravenman; 05-13-2019 at 08:33 AM.
  #85  
Old 05-13-2019, 08:35 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
That isn't voter disenfranchisement. You're clearly adopting Trump's tactic of making words mean nothing, just like how "fake news" used to be lies spread by Russian bots, and now Republicans use it to refer to unfavorable but truthful news coverage.

Nobody here is going to buy your attempts to misdirect this debate through sloppy use of the English language.

Also, nobody is falling for your "you have to provide cites to prove I'm wrong" schtick. We see though your little games: you post something and refuse to back it up, either out of laziness or trying to make the other side do more work to rebut your nonsense.
Trying to kick one of the major party's candidates off the ballot isn't disenfranchisement? 'you can vote for anyone you want as president, as long as it's a Democrat'.

Your argument here is absurd. Of course that would disenfranchise Republicans voters.
  #86  
Old 05-13-2019, 08:42 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,174
Holy shit I swear this thread was about something before it became the HurricaneDitka show.
  #87  
Old 05-13-2019, 08:50 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,771
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Your argument here is absurd. Of course that would disenfranchise Republicans voters.
Last year, a Virginia congressional candidate was removed from the ballot due to fraud in gathering signatures. You are with a straight face asserting that Virginia voters were disenfranched because of this?

In the same way that Republican governors in certain states have made an effort to keep minority voters from ever entering polling places?

Based on this exchange, I'm beginning to change my mind on the topic of the OP: Republicans might not change that much after Trump is gone. They will still equate nonsensical things with the racism espoused by certain portions of their party leadership in order to make themselves out as the real victims.
  #88  
Old 05-13-2019, 08:55 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Last year, a Virginia congressional candidate was removed from the ballot due to fraud in gathering signatures. You are with a straight face asserting that Virginia voters were disenfranched because of this?

In the same way that Republican governors in certain states have made an effort to keep minority voters from ever entering polling places?

Based on this exchange, I'm beginning to change my mind on the topic of the OP: Republicans might not change that much after Trump is gone. They will still equate nonsensical things with the racism espoused by certain portions of their party leadership in order to make themselves out as the real victims.
The critical difference there is obviously the "due to fraud" part. I'm fairly confident you already knew that.
  #89  
Old 05-13-2019, 08:57 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,174
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
So it's basically trivial at this point to point out that the republican party is completely divorced from reality. Everyone knows, no real need to go back over it. And it largely comes down to the right-wing media sphere encouraging that divorce with constant lies, smear campaigns, et cetera.

Have those dynamics become better or worse in the past 2 years?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

There's no moderating influence on the republican side. There's no voice (at least, not with any influence) saying, "Hey, wait, this isn't okay". Rank and file republicans have about a 90% agreement rate with Donald Trump - given how he's been so far, how bad do you think things have to get for that to drop significantly? And if things do get worse, why wouldn't the right-wing filter bubble immediately blame it on the democrats?

Despite what Joe Biden might say, Trump is not some anomaly. He's the culmination of modern right-wing grift. The party is well and truly run by the folks on the far right. Even so-called "moderate" republicans have to either step in line with Hannity, Limbaugh, and co, or lose power and influence. There's nobody willing and able to check those influences. Hell, the president recently stood up for an Infowars editor and a bunch of white nationalists on twitter - where's the pushback from republicans who are, if not moderate, then at least fucking sane? There is none, because the media landscape ensures that if they stand up to the far right, they will get pummeled.

The only thing that will set this right, short of Breitbart and co. ceasing to exist, is if the republicans take such an impossible beating in the next election that it causes the heads at Fox News to say, "whoa, time to tune things down a bit and rein in our worst excesses". Except that they have a far better line to take should that happen, a line they've been pushing for god knows how long: "Voter Fraud". Hell, now we have Nancy Pelosi talking about how she's concerned that Trump will contest the election results if he loses. And why wouldn't the right-wing media go right along with it, just like they've gone right along with every other insane, dangerous, stupid thing he's said in the last 3 years?

This doesn't get better without getting a whole lot worse. Unless the republican party is completely crushed, unless the political landscape shifts so dramatically that "I read Breitbart" becomes widely recognized as akin to "I read the Daily Stormer", there's no incentive to stop. We are sleepwalking towards a fascist dictatorship.

Like, imagine if Trump loses in 2020, and senate republicans, for whatever reason, refuse to go along with him disputing the election results (given Mitch McConnell's consistent norm-breaking behavior over the past decade and his caucus's willingness to go along with it, I find this unlikely). What happens in 2024? Is there any reason to believe the far right will tone it down? That we'll see less insane conspiracy theories attacking the legitimacy of our institutions? That they'll be less willing to blatantly lie about anything and everything? These conditions that led to Trump have no real reason to improve, so they won't.

But here's the scary part. Trump is currently a drag on his party. But that largely comes down to him being grossly incompetent, stupid, self-destructive, obviously corrupt, et cetera et cetera et cetera. What if, in 2024, the person who runs shares Trump's authoritarian tendencies, but, just to name one obvious example, isn't so stupidly self-destructive that he'd fire the head of the FBI that's currently investigating him for ties to Russia, then admit on national television that he fired the head of the FBI because of his handling of an investigation into him. Imagine if, instead of a scandal-prone man who cheated on his pregnant wife with a porn star then paid said porn star to keep quiet, we had just... someone who wasn't that.

We're fucked.
Like, just to name the obvious example...

Tucker Carlson.

Tucker is young, at least somewhat charismatic, and while (as one might expect given his position as a right-wing shock jock) has absolutely said some pretty fucking heinous things, there's nowhere near the stain that Trump has.

But he is pushing the same white identity politics as Trump. He's exceedingly popular among Trump's base. He's got the same sort of pseudo-support for the working class that Trump likes to milk. If you're a Trump fan, there's a lot to like there. And if you're a Trump fan, you're statistically 9/10 republicans, so you know that he stands a good chance in the primary.

After Trump, why would the GOP back away from identity politics and outright graft? It worked so well for them! Even if Trump ends up losing, that's not because his politics were super unpopular (I mean, they are, but people don't seem to care about that), it's because he was personally the most dishonest, scandal-ridden president ever. And Tucker Carlson is like Trump without half the bad baggage. He'll be even closer to Fox News, which will probably work even better to coordinate their propaganda. And that's the direction the right is being pulled - what could possibly prompt a return to the relative sanity of Bush and Cheney? (Wow, that's a sentence that is physically painful to write. We're so far-gone that the Bush administration now seems sane and rational by comparison. I need a drink.)
  #90  
Old 05-13-2019, 08:58 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,771
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
The critical difference there is obviously the "due to fraud" part. I'm fairly confident you already knew that.
You're asserting that "kept off the ballot" is equal to "voters losing the right to vote."

In other words, you have just another contentless, word-mincing argument.
  #91  
Old 05-13-2019, 09:57 AM
enipla is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Colorado Rockies.
Posts: 14,078
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
...Your argument here is absurd. Of course that would disenfranchise Republicans voters.
So you're asserting that Republicans are tax cheats.
__________________
I don't live in the middle of nowhere, but I can see it from here.
  #92  
Old 05-13-2019, 10:05 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
You're asserting that "kept off the ballot" is equal to "voters losing the right to vote."

In other words, you have just another contentless, word-mincing argument.
I'm asserting that they're related, and similar enough that I'm comfortable labeling both of them as "disenfranchisement".

It's an old Communist gimmick to hold elections where only one party is allowed on the ballot. Most people are able to see that for what it is.

Freedom House attempts to rank countries based on their freedom. One of the factors in their methodology is:

Quote:
Were voters able to vote for the candidate or party of their choice without undue pressure or intimidation?
How do you think a blue state would score in that category if it effectively prevented Republican voters from voting for their preferred candidate for president?

Now, if you want to mince words, and don't think "disenfranchise" is a precise enough label for depriving voters of the realistic opportunity to vote for their preferred candidate, I'm open to hearing suggestions on what we ought to call this action instead.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 05-13-2019 at 10:07 AM.
  #93  
Old 05-13-2019, 10:07 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by enipla View Post
So you're asserting that Republicans are tax cheats.
That's not even remotely close to what I'm asserting. Try harder.
  #94  
Old 05-13-2019, 10:08 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,771
So now you're saying Democrats are like Eastern Bloc communists. Nothing has changed with Republican character attacks in 70 years, I guess.
  #95  
Old 05-13-2019, 10:09 AM
enipla is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Colorado Rockies.
Posts: 14,078
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
That's not even remotely close to what I'm asserting. Try harder.
Requiring tax information in know way prevents any specific party from getting on the ballot. You are saying that this requirement would specifically disenfranchise republicans. Why, if not for being tax cheats.
__________________
I don't live in the middle of nowhere, but I can see it from here.
  #96  
Old 05-13-2019, 10:14 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
So now you're saying Democrats are like Eastern Bloc communists. Nothing has changed with Republican character attacks in 70 years, I guess.
They certainly appear to share a liking for this particular tactic.
  #97  
Old 05-13-2019, 10:15 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,272
You really are telling us that tax fraud is a Republican thing, aren't you?
  #98  
Old 05-13-2019, 10:16 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by enipla View Post
Requiring tax information in know way prevents any specific party from getting on the ballot. You are saying that this requirement would specifically disenfranchise republicans. Why, if not for being tax cheats.
Do you recognize the possibility that someone might have other motives for not wanting to publicize their tax returns besides them containing evidence of cheating (which the IRS apparently missed)?
  #99  
Old 05-13-2019, 10:17 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,272
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Do you recognize the possibility that someone might have other motives for not wanting to publicize their tax returns besides them containing evidence of cheating (which the IRS apparently missed)?
Give us a few examples.
  #100  
Old 05-13-2019, 10:18 AM
enipla is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Colorado Rockies.
Posts: 14,078
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Do you recognize the possibility that someone might have other motives for not wanting to publicize their tax returns besides them containing evidence of cheating (which the IRS apparently missed)?
Sure. Why does this specifically concern republicans.
__________________
I don't live in the middle of nowhere, but I can see it from here.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:24 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017