Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 02-15-2020, 01:02 PM
margin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest-starring: Id! View Post
Or half your country anyway. For me the tipping point was the Senate voting to acquit President Sit On My Yammering, Festering Piehole.



ba-dum-dum



I'm sure we can say the same about a lot more countries than just Poland and Venezuela.



Uh, yeah: this.

If I lived down there, I would too. More people will need to galvanize themselves into a waaaaaaaaaaay more activist mindset, without question. (Hey - it's your democracy, or what will soon be left of it.)



Woah.
With clothespinned nose I'll look into this.
i'll save you the trouble.

Nature does not, in fact, design thirteen-year-old girls for sex and babies. As long as they have the narrow pelvis of childhood, a pregnancy could kill them far easier than an adult woman. I'm assuming anyone seeing "thirteen-year-old" automatically thinks, "child," so I needn't point out how a kid that age is, well,
a kid
. Plus, if "Nature" intended, why are girls' periods that age so eccentric and irregular?

When you see "thirteen-year-old" there's all that there, and so much more, so it's not just mentioning an age. Girls that age still play with dolls, and good for them. Just about every woman.can tell you of getting creeped on by adult men when they themselves were obviously children.
__________________
"She's so angry!" When people say the same thing the same way about men, then you can complain.
  #52  
Old 02-15-2020, 02:15 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,965
The single most worrisome aspect of the entire Trump era, even more worrisome than Trump himself, has been the general lack of apparent outrage. There are some individual groups who have taken to the streets to protest, like when the women's march was organized after the inauguration and the immigration protests. But there's been no protest in reaction to the president's conduct of office, and that is nothing short of horrifying. Shit, the president registered some of his highest approval ratings the day he was acquitted of his obvious high crimes.

I went to a pro-immigration protest last year (might have been 2018 now that I think of it), and it felt good just to be around other people who had decided collectively that they weren't going to just sit back and watch as children get put into cages. We need more of these protests - and I say, join one if there's anything near you in the near future. Voting is great. Canvassing is great, and necessary. But in the end, after the machinery of democracy has rusted itself into disrepair, after nearly everything has failed, it's mass protest that is the final check on the abuse of power. It's the ultimate sign that the people send to those in power when they want to renegotiate the social contract.
  #53  
Old 02-15-2020, 02:57 PM
dasmoocher is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 3,589
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
The single most worrisome aspect of the entire Trump era, even more worrisome than Trump himself, has been the general lack of apparent outrage.
This is how democracy dies — in full view of a public that couldn’t care less

Quote:
The French philosopher Montesquieu wrote in 1748: “The tyranny of a prince in an oligarchy is not so dangerous to the public welfare as the apathy of a citizen in a democracy.” We are seeing his warning vindicated. President Trump is increasingly acting as a tyrannical (and erratic) prince. And yet much of the public is so inured to his misconduct that his latest assaults on the rule of law are met with a collective shrug. Public passivity is Trump’s secret weapon as he pursues his authoritarian agenda. “I have the right to do whatever I want,” he says, and the lack of pushback seems to confirm it.

...


A recent Gallup poll found that Trump’s approval rating among Republicans — the supposed law-and-order party — is at a record-high 94 percent. His support in the country as a whole is only 43.4 percent in the FiveThirtyEight average, but he is still well positioned to win reelection, because most people seem to care a lot more about the strength of the stock market than about the strength of our democracy. This is how democracies die — not in darkness but in full view of a public that couldn’t care less.

Last edited by dasmoocher; 02-15-2020 at 02:59 PM.
  #54  
Old 02-15-2020, 03:01 PM
JohnBckWLD is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: stole_this_acct
Posts: 4,085
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackmannii View Post
Argumentum ad Nazium always works great when it comes to mobilizing public opinion, as do assertions by shrinks who've never examined the patient...
Don't need a shrink to clearly see the OP's disconnected ramblings serve merely as panem et circenses for the paranoid masses.
  #55  
Old 02-15-2020, 03:51 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 20,759
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasmoocher View Post
This is how democracy dies — in full view of a public that couldn’t care less
Quote:
The French philosopher Montesquieu wrote in 1748: “The tyranny of a prince in an oligarchy is not so dangerous to the public welfare as the apathy of a citizen in a democracy.” We are seeing his warning vindicated. President Trump is increasingly acting as a tyrannical (and erratic) prince. And yet much of the public is so inured to his misconduct that his latest assaults on the rule of law are met with a collective shrug. Public passivity is Trump’s secret weapon as he pursues his authoritarian agenda. “I have the right to do whatever I want,” he says, and the lack of pushback seems to confirm it.

...


A recent Gallup poll found that Trump’s approval rating among Republicans — the supposed law-and-order party — is at a record-high 94 percent. His support in the country as a whole is only 43.4 percent in the FiveThirtyEight average, but he is still well positioned to win reelection, because most people seem to care a lot more about the strength of the stock market than about the strength of our democracy. This is how democracies die — not in darkness but in full view of a public that couldn’t care less.
Thanks for linking to this poignant all-too-true message. (I'm almost even tempted to fight the WashPost's cookie/jscript wall to read the whole article.)
  #56  
Old 02-15-2020, 04:01 PM
Guest-starring: Id!'s Avatar
Guest-starring: Id! is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 4,603
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnBckWLD View Post
Don't need a shrink to clearly see the OP's disconnected ramblings serve merely as panem et circenses for the paranoid masses.
Which mass? Paranoid of what?
  #57  
Old 02-15-2020, 04:01 PM
dasmoocher is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 3,589
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Thanks for linking to this poignant all-too-true message. (I'm almost even tempted to fight the WashPost's cookie/jscript wall to read the whole article.)
You could try opening in an incognito window/tab.
  #58  
Old 02-16-2020, 02:26 AM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 11,305
Quote:
Originally Posted by margin View Post
Trump worships Putin and Bernie worships Noriega and Castro.
I notice that in neither this thread nor the one attempting to pit you have you attempted to provide a cite or justification for this nonsense, one of the stupidest statements I have ever read.

Yes, the first part is right. Trump worships Putin; this has been clear for years, and was amply evident even to the most oblivious at the infamous Helsinki summit. Trump puts his love of Putin ahead of America's interests and clearly aspires to be just like him -- a self-serving corrupt dictator with unlimited power. Same reason he also worships Kim Jong Un and has openly admired the absolute authority and royal respect the man receives (or else off you go to the labor camp), wishing that his own toadies would treat him just like that (Trump later claimed this was a joke, but all his actions prove otherwise, including wishing that the judiciary's checks on the presidency could be made to disappear).

The part about Bernie is gibbering nonsense, even making allowances for the fact that you probably meant Daniel Ortega, not Noriega. Bernie is well aware that Castro was a ruthless dictator, but Castro also overthrew a corrupt regime and genuinely tried to improve conditions for his people, such as introducing universal health care which is a hell of a lot more than Bernie's critics will ever do. Likewise Bernie sided with Ortega and the Sandanista revolutionaries in Nicaragua, and correctly stated that just because Reagan hated both didn't mean that Castro and Ortega didn't have at least some good intentions for improving conditions in their respective countries, as indeed they did.

The argument of some of Bernie's critics, of which you seem to be one, is that if he had his way, Bernie would turn the US into some version of Cuba or Nicaragua -- or, according to others, more like Venezuela. No. Bernie is not a communist nor, unlike Trump, is he a narcissistic blithering moron with aspirations to dictatorship. Bernie is a social democrat, and if he had his way, his ideal model would be something like Sweden. But since political and cultural realities would make this impossible, a Bernie presidency with strong Congressional support would actually turn the US into something that looks more like ... Canada! Canada, with universal health care and relatively strong social services, but otherwise full-out capitalism (and hockey). Trump, meanwhile, is planning billions in cuts from even the most basic US social services, like food stamps. In his ideal, the US would look more like Russia, except that instead of "president" his title would be either "dictator for life" or "King Trump".
  #59  
Old 02-16-2020, 08:49 AM
margin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
I notice that in neither this thread nor the one attempting to pit you have you attempted to provide a cite or justification for this nonsense, one of the stupidest statements I have ever read.

Yes, the first part is right. Trump worships Putin; this has been clear for years, and was amply evident even to the most oblivious at the infamous Helsinki summit. Trump puts his love of Putin ahead of America's interests and clearly aspires to be just like him -- a self-serving corrupt dictator with unlimited power. Same reason he also worships Kim Jong Un and has openly admired the absolute authority and royal respect the man receives (or else off you go to the labor camp), wishing that his own toadies would treat him just like that (Trump later claimed this was a joke, but all his actions prove otherwise, including wishing that the judiciary's checks on the presidency could be made to disappear).

The part about Bernie is gibbering nonsense, even making allowances for the fact that you probably meant Daniel Ortega, not Noriega. Bernie is well aware that Castro was a ruthless dictator, but Castro also overthrew a corrupt regime and genuinely tried to improve conditions for his people, such as introducing universal health care which is a hell of a lot more than Bernie's critics will ever do. Likewise Bernie sided with Ortega and the Sandanista revolutionaries in Nicaragua, and correctly stated that just because Reagan hated both didn't mean that Castro and Ortega didn't have at least some good intentions for improving conditions in their respective countries, as indeed they did.

The argument of some of Bernie's critics, of which you seem to be one, is that if he had his way, Bernie would turn the US into some version of Cuba or Nicaragua -- or, according to others, more like Venezuela. No. Bernie is not a communist nor, unlike Trump, is he a narcissistic blithering moron with aspirations to dictatorship. Bernie is a social democrat, and if he had his way, his ideal model would be something like Sweden. But since political and cultural realities would make this impossible, a Bernie presidency with strong Congressional support would actually turn the US into something that looks more like ... Canada! Canada, with universal health care and relatively strong social services, but otherwise full-out capitalism (and hockey). Trump, meanwhile, is planning billions in cuts from even the most basic US social services, like food stamps. In his ideal, the US would look more like Russia, except that instead of "president" his title would be either "dictator for life" or "King Trump".
I provided a link to an obscure little rag called The New York Times, describing how Saint Bernie flew fourteen hours and changed planes three times to listen to people chant, "Here, there, the Yankee must die," but like so many Bernie Bros, only dreamy worship of your savior is allowed.

Here's a variety of videos and cites which depict Bernie saying JFK's criticism of Castro nauseated him among other things, but how about that consistancy his fans like to brag about?

I especially like being told by another Bro that that was thirty years ago, so it doesn't count, but his great civil rights hero march was fifty-odd years ago, so pick one, because if one matters, so does the other. My all-time favorite Bernie Broism is watching them rage that Hillary being a "Goldwater Girl" at sixteen is totally relevant while whining that Bernie's "Old Bitches"/little girls need to fuck & have babies essay at thirty is just a youthful indiscretion. Taken together and placed in the context of the Roman Polanski sixties, the juxtaposition depicts BS and his fans unwittingly as hippie misogynists, the sort of guys who raged about war and civil rights but laughed that "womens' position" in the rebellion was 'prone.' Women in the movement were pointing out, "Just as the average white doesn't realize he assumes he's superior, so too the average SNCC worker finds it difficult to discuss the woman problem because of the assumption of male superiority," while men were coining slogans like, "Women say yes to men who say no."

I could go on but you won't read any of it or watch videos because Bros have a tendency to believe what Bernie brags about himself without facthecking, so hello ignore list.
  #60  
Old 02-16-2020, 11:05 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,965
From the section you quoted, dasmoocher:

Quote:
A recent Gallup poll found that Trump’s approval rating among Republicans — the supposed law-and-order party — is at a record-high 94 percent.
In fact, this is a sign that his party is, in all likelihood, becoming smaller and smaller -- but more extreme. It's dangerous to assume that the dwindling size of the republican party is necessarily a good sign. It's still one of two mainstream political parties that functions viably in all states, counties, and municipalities in the United States. All over the country, the republican party is still quite capable of nominating judges, attorneys general, district attorneys, mayors, city managers, chiefs of police, sheriffs, constables, assessors, state representatives, state senators, and of course US representatives, US senators, and presidents. It's the more extreme part that should concern you: membership in this smaller, but still very powerful party, requires what is effectively a pledge to uphold the extreme. Fail to live up to that pledge, and you're out. For a reference, see Nazi Germany, and on that note, I bring up another late Weimar parallel:

Quote:
His support in the country as a whole is only 43.4 percent in the FiveThirtyEight average, but he is still well positioned to win reelection, because most people seem to care a lot more about the strength of the stock market than about the strength of our democracy.
Indeed.

The ever-dwindling Republican party, and a president with only 43% approval rating still has a chance to maintain, and possibly even expand their power later this year. Why? Because the parties are no longer big tents; they've splintered into smaller factions that increasingly find it difficult and painful to work with each other, even with members of their own party and with people whom they have mostly shared interests. The Republicans solved that problem: they exile anyone who fails to uphold the pledge. The Democrats, OTOH, are still trying to fight through some of their disagreements, but it's increasingly difficult. The progressive voter's or politician's equivalent may not be exile; it just might be staying home and dropping out of the process altogether until someone more palatable comes along: subverting and sabotaging intra-party opposition with an effective no-confidence vote with their feet. And this, my friends, is what worries me about Bernie Sanders' intrusion - yes, intrusion - into the Democratic politics.

People frequently point out that Trump's inability to maintain a high favorability rating is a sign of his weakness, and they're not completely wrong: he is historically the most unpopular president in the modern era. But because politics has become Balkanized, he can still win. The Republican party can still win. And it can win because it's about which tribe can energize its voters the most. Yes, the Democrats have potentially a larger coalition -- a potentially much larger coalition, in fact. But that coalition has to agree to work together, and it starts by agreeing to support each other at the polls, regardless of who is nominated to carry out that mantra. I believe that Sanders means it when he says he will support his current rivals should they win - I'm not bashing Sanders the man. But I worry like hell that his surrogates won't be there, that his supporters won't be there, that they will sabotage their current rivals instead of agreeing to cooperate with the much more venomous rival that progressives will face in November.

I'll remind people: Nazi Germany wasn't a military coup; it was an elected government - it won with just 37% of the actual vote, and it represented an even smaller minority of actual eligible voters. The Nazis began and for the longest time existed as an extremist faction - one that obstructed and created constitutional crises, just like the Republicans are now. One that conservatives thought for the longest time that they could use for their own purposes, just like now. One that gradually festered like a ravaging parasite within its ailing host and eventually consumed the entire system, perhaps like now.

37 percent.

Quote:
This is how democracies die — not in darkness but in full view of a public that couldn’t care less.
And yet I think a lot of people do care - they care a lot. But we have perpetually underestimated this threat, and we are under-responding to the ill-intentions that are perpetually manifest. Nixon was thrown out of power, but it wasn't just because both parties agreed on reality; in fact, I'd argue that there were two different realities back then just as there are now. I think there are many differences between now and then, but one critical difference that stands out in my mind is that information was massified, and they valued truth: there wasn't a parallel purveyor of alternative reality acting alongside Woodward and Bernstein when they uncovered Watergate. Not the case anymore.

But an even more important difference is that standards were higher. Expectations were higher. People expected more out of public office than what they get now. It doesn't mean that people were naive back then and that they assumed that politicians never strayed in their marriages or fail to pay back taxes; they just didn't make it the centerpiece of political discussion, but there was an expectation that public office was reserved for people who were responsible, mature, intellectual, and capable. Now there are no such expectations. We did elect a guy who bragged about groping women on a hot mic, after all.

Why was Nixon really thrown out of power? Because 1974 was on the heels of the Civil Rights marches, the anti-Vietnam war protests. People got out in the streets back then. They were willing to swell the local jails with scores of activists - and both republicans and democrats damn well knew it, too. That's just not the case now. In fact, republicans are banking on you not to get out into the streets. They're hedging on the assumption you won't.

Last edited by asahi; 02-16-2020 at 11:08 AM.
  #61  
Old 02-16-2020, 11:40 AM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 11,305
Quote:
Originally Posted by margin View Post
I provided a link to an obscure little rag called The New York Times, describing how Saint Bernie flew fourteen hours and changed planes three times to listen to people chant, "Here, there, the Yankee must die," but like so many Bernie Bros, only dreamy worship of your savior is allowed.
I don't think Bernie flew to Nicaragua to sing or listen to anti-American chants. But since you can't tell the difference between Ortega and Noriega perhaps your knowledge of history is lacking.

He flew there to meet with Daniel Ortega during a bloody civil war that was being largely supported militarily and financially by the CIA. You may have heard of a little something called the Iran-Contra affair -- that was the culmination of it, but the war itself involved the Contras committing horrific atrocities against the Sandinista government and civilian soft targets like schools and hospitals -- outright war crimes that resulted in more than 30,000 deaths -- all with the blessing of the US government and the covert support of the CIA. More about that and Bernie's visit here. At some point a reporter heard the referenced anti-American chant from someone during a rally. It's a mystery why anyone would even bother mentioning it or be surprised by it, given the history of American-sponsored atrocities in the region.
  #62  
Old 02-16-2020, 11:57 AM
margin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
I don't think Bernie flew to Nicaragua to sing or listen to anti-American chants. But since you can't tell the difference between Ortega and Noriega perhaps your knowledge of history is lacking.

He flew there to meet with Daniel Ortega during a bloody civil war that was being largely supported militarily and financially by the CIA. You may have heard of a little something called the Iran-Contra affair -- that was the culmination of it, but the war itself involved the Contras committing horrific atrocities against the Sandinista government and civilian soft targets like schools and hospitals -- outright war crimes that resulted in more than 30,000 deaths -- all with the blessing of the US government and the covert support of the CIA. More about that and Bernie's visit here. At some point a reporter heard the referenced anti-American chant from someone during a rally. It's a mystery why anyone would even bother mentioning it or be surprised by it, given the history of American-sponsored atrocities in the region.

It's not that I can't tell the difference, asshole, it's a slip of the tongue, but just like I said, you won't read or consider anything that criticizes Dear Leader, so fuck you for asking for cites when you knew goddamned well your mind was made up.
  #63  
Old 02-16-2020, 12:27 PM
crowmanyclouds's Avatar
crowmanyclouds is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: ... hiding in my room ...
Posts: 4,828
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
{...} Why was Nixon really thrown out of power? Because 1974 was on the heels of the Civil Rights marches, the anti-Vietnam war protests. People got out in the streets back then. They were willing to swell the local jails with scores of activists - and both republicans and democrats damn well knew it, too. That's just not the case now. In fact, republicans are banking on you not to get out into the streets. They're hedging on the assumption you won't.
Why was Nixon in power?
Oh yeah,
Quote:
{...} Nixon won the election in a landslide, taking 60.7% of the popular vote and carrying 49 states, and he was the first Republican to sweep the South. McGovern took just 37.5% of the popular vote, while John G. Schmitz of the American Independent Party won 1.4% of the vote. Nixon received almost 18 million more votes than McGovern, and he holds the record for the widest popular vote margin in any United States presidential election. {...}
Now, as I recall it, the Civil Rights marches and the anti-Vietnam war protests did not happen between 72 and 74. So, maybe you'd kindly explain how said marches and protests swayed 'middle' America to not vote the greater of the two evils?

'(At Least) For More Years!'

CMC fnord!
  #64  
Old 02-16-2020, 04:05 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,965
Quote:
Originally Posted by crowmanyclouds View Post
Why was Nixon in power?
Oh yeah,Now, as I recall it, the Civil Rights marches and the anti-Vietnam war protests did not happen between 72 and 74. So, maybe you'd kindly explain how said marches and protests swayed 'middle' America to not vote the greater of the two evils?

'(At Least) For More Years!'

CMC fnord!
Are you really that fucking thick?
  #65  
Old 02-16-2020, 05:15 PM
crowmanyclouds's Avatar
crowmanyclouds is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: ... hiding in my room ...
Posts: 4,828
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Are you really that fucking thick?
Are you just gonna insult me and not answer the fucking question?

CMC fnord!
  #66  
Old 02-16-2020, 06:01 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,965
Quote:
Originally Posted by crowmanyclouds View Post
Are you just gonna insult me and not answer the fucking question?

CMC fnord!
Yes, I just might.

Are you that fucking thick? Do you need your diaper changed?
  #67  
Old 02-16-2020, 06:11 PM
crowmanyclouds's Avatar
crowmanyclouds is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: ... hiding in my room ...
Posts: 4,828
Because 1972 was on the heels of the Civil Rights marches, the anti-Vietnam war protests. People got out to the polls back then. Electing a 'law and order' Republican was exactly what middle America wanted. Swelling the local jails with scores of activists was what they wanted.

Your turn, I expect a decent insult, try hard!

CMC fnord!
  #68  
Old 02-16-2020, 06:29 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,965
Quote:
Originally Posted by crowmanyclouds View Post
Because 1972 was on the heels of the Civil Rights marches, the anti-Vietnam war protests. People got out to the polls back then. Electing a 'law and order' Republican was exactly what middle America wanted. Swelling the local jails with scores of activists was what they wanted.

Your turn, I expect a decent insult, try hard!

CMC fnord!
Right, but did they get a law and order president, or a lawless president? You tell me, smartass.

My point was, compared to now, people weren't going to tolerate Nixon's bullshit, once it was revealed. It took a lot of investigative journalism, some hearings, some tapes for people to recognize the shit stains on Nixon's dirty drawers, but it was apparent that, unlike now, people weren't going to accept a lawless president. In case you missed, you senile fucking tool, that was the point.

I'll conclude by saying that maybe you should stop pulling the "I was alive then" card. Guess someone should point out that your posting "acumen" (lol) is a bit off. You're losing your acuity, pops. Go fuck with someone on the JV squad, 'cause I own your geriatric ass.
  #69  
Old 02-16-2020, 06:45 PM
crowmanyclouds's Avatar
crowmanyclouds is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: ... hiding in my room ...
Posts: 4,828
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Right, but did they get a law and order president, or a lawless president? You tell me, smartass.

My point was, compared to now, people weren't going to tolerate Nixon's bullshit, once it was revealed. It took a lot of investigative journalism, some hearings, some tapes for people to recognize the shit stains on Nixon's dirty drawers, but it was apparent that, unlike now, people weren't going to accept a lawless president. In case you missed, you senile fucking tool, that was the point.

I'll conclude by saying that maybe you should stop pulling the "I was alive then" card. Guess someone should point out that your posting "acumen" (lol) is a bit off. You're losing your acuity, pops. Go fuck with someone on the JV squad, 'cause I own your geriatric ass.
People were more than willing to tolerate Nixon's bullshit, once it was revealed. Nixon's bullshit was compared to Kennedy's.
"Well, when the President does it, that means that it is not illegal." wasn't dismissed with a chortle.

And you forgot 'boomer'!

CMC fnord!

Last edited by crowmanyclouds; 02-16-2020 at 06:46 PM.
  #70  
Old 02-16-2020, 06:51 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,965
Quote:
Originally Posted by crowmanyclouds View Post
People were more than willing to tolerate Nixon's bullshit, once it was revealed. Nixon's bullshit was compared to Kennedy's.
"Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal." wasn't dismissed with a chortle.
Right, according to your ole 'Lemme sip some moonshine while I talk shit about ole times,' fuzzy-ass memory anecdotes.

You forgot: Republicans caved. I'm guessing that people who do politics for a living are smarter than you and realized that people weren't going to tolerate Nixon's bullshit as much as you imagine they would have.
  #71  
Old 02-16-2020, 07:03 PM
crowmanyclouds's Avatar
crowmanyclouds is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: ... hiding in my room ...
Posts: 4,828
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Right, according to your ole 'Lemme sip some moonshine while I talk shit about ole times,' fuzzy-ass memory anecdotes.

You forgot: Republicans caved. I'm guessing that people who do politics for a living are smarter than you and realized that people weren't going to tolerate Nixon's bullshit as much as you imagine they would have.
You forgot 'boomer' again.

CMC fnord!
  #72  
Old 02-16-2020, 08:28 PM
Mr. Duality is offline
Luminary
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: The High Plains
Posts: 1,621
See my latest post in The Trump Administration Clusterfuck thread. Out of concern for violating the crossposting policy I'll let you ook it up yourself. Go ahead, it will allay some of your fear.
__________________
America- Fuck yeah!
  #73  
Old 02-16-2020, 11:39 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,965
Quote:
Originally Posted by crowmanyclouds View Post
You forgot 'boomer' again.

CMC fnord!
Weak. Limp.

Try Cialis or Viagra.
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 09:20 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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 © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017