2020 Election Thread!!!!!!!!!

[Sommerswerd]

I'm not responding to your posts, I'm commenting on your hypocrisy.

The hypocrisy you're referencing is my insistence that Democrats factor in the influence/possibility of sexism/misogyny in deciding whether to elect a woman? Or is my hypocrisy coming from the fact that I disagree with you, in what you feel is a condescending and elitist manner? I get that you don't agree with me, but I don't get what hypocrisy you're referring to. I can certainly see and agree that I am hypocritical sometimes about some things... but I don't see how the charge is relevant in this particular exchange.

 

[onejayhawk]

I will not comment about any personal hypocrisy, but you seem to be defending the general hypocrisy of Democrats labeling Republicans as X-ist. Even when true, the Democrats are equally guilty. More guilty in some cases because they are smug of their supposed virtue.

J

 

[Azem.Ocram]

http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/20/news/trump-conflicts-inauguration/index.html

President The Donald has violated The Constitution, among other (impeachable) offenses.

Also, some of his tweets spread misinformation which hurt reputation and reduced profits, which can be considered libel.

 

[onejayhawk]

http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/20/news/trump-conflicts-inauguration/index.html
President The Donald has violated The Constitution, among other (impeachable) offenses.
Also, some of his tweets spread misinformation which hurt reputation and reduced profits, which can be considered libel.

That's one petal. When you have enough to cover a Rose Parade float, call back.

J

 

[Sommerswerd]

I will not comment about any personal hypocrisy, but you seem to be defending the general hypocrisy of Democrats labeling Republicans as X-ist. Even when true, the Democrats are equally guilty. More guilty in some cases because they are smug of their supposed virtue.

This is more along the lines of what I was talking about (here and on other threads)... ultimately it was the 2012 Democratic voters who failed to elect Hillary not the 2012 Republican voters. If anyone is to be accused of sexism for example, its the 2012 (and maybe 2008) Obama voters who switched sides and supported/voted for Trump, or Johnson (or some other male candidate) instead of Hillary or Stein. The XYZ-ism of 2012 (and even moreso the 2004-2012) Republican voters is irrelevant, they have rock solid cover to vote for the Republican nominee.

I'm not responding to your posts, I'm commenting on your hypocrisy.

I have to admit, this sounds like more doublethink, and I'm struggling to come up with any meaningful response.

 

[onejayhawk]

This is more along the lines of what I was talking about (here and on other threads)... ultimately it was the 2012 Democratic voters who failed to elect Hillary not the 2012 Republican voters. If anyone is to be accused of sexism for example, its the 2012 (and maybe 2008) Obama voters who switched sides and supported/voted for Trump, or Johnson (or some other male candidate) instead of Hillary or Stein. The XYZ-ism of 2012 (and even moreso the 2004-2012) Republican voters is irrelevant, they have rock solid cover to vote for the Republican nominee. I have to admit, this sounds like more doublethink, and I'm struggling to come up with any meaningful response.

This is why I wish the mods had left the election thread open. It was a good forum to discuss the hows and whys.

J

 

[Kyriakos]

Maybe Droney will play a part in 2020?

 

[danjuno]

Droney 2020 Make America Bomb Again

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

It's ok, Trump is raising Droney now.

 

[JollyRoger]

My Little Droney.

 

[Gori the Grey]

This is why I wish the mods had left the election thread open. It was a good forum to discuss the hows and whys.

J

It's funny that the thread devoted to the Republican nomination, "Clown Car," is still open. Maybe we need a new thread specifically devoted to retrospective analysis of the 2016 election.

 

[Azem.Ocram]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/24/opinions/why-trump-lies-dantonio-opinion/index.html

It's only a matter of time before The D'ump lies under oath. Such a large amount of grave impeachable offenses MUST result in his impeachment, in all but the most Orwelian systems.

 

[Lexicus]

in all but the most Orwelian systems.

And do you imagine, even for one moment, that the Republican Party is not completely Orwellian? They're not going to impeach him for any actual transgressions. They'll impeach him if they think he's becoming a political liability, so that President Pence can carry out their horrible, destructive agenda.

Really, that kind of move would defang half the criticism of the current government, which idiotically is focusing on the individual failings and foibles of Trump and not criticizing the garbage policies that are supported by most of the Republican Party.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

Trump is not getting impeached. Grover Norquist laid it out in 2012; all the Republicans want is someone who will sign their bills. Between Trump's rabid and vengeful fanbase and his acquiescence to hard right conservative policies, they have nothing to gain by doing so.

 

[Lexicus]

You may well be right. Trump may never become a political liability to the Republicans because his supporters don't care what he actually does. But I stand by what I said - if he's impeached, it won't be out of principle, it will be an act of political calculation by Republicans looking to Cover Their Behinds.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

No you're right, that's the only way it'll happen. Like a recession or even more massive crisis in leadership. But in terms of just Donald being Donald, it won't happen.

 

[Ferocitus]

Opinions! Everywhere!

"Don’t look now: It’s President Pence! Donald Trump can be deposed, even without impeachment".
http://www.salon.com/2017/01/25/don...rump-can-be-deposed-even-without-impeachment/

 

[onejayhawk]

Were they not the people that opposed any comment against the office of the President for the last eight years?

J

 

[Hygro]

So when is Gavin Newsom cool enough to run?

 

[Lexicus]

Were they not the people that opposed any comment against the office of the President for the last eight years?

J

I guess if you ignore all the criticisms they were making against things like the drone program and the Wall St cuddling.