Say Something Completely Random And Off Topic

winetarelli posted:

What I truly don’t get, however, is willingness to tear through the very fabric of liberal democracy and rule of law in order to achieve these ends. It turns out a heartbreaking percentage of the population — and nearly 100% of Congressional Republicans — simply don’t care too much about well-ordered democracy. Or, worse, have contempt for it and the very foundations of this country. 

 

I am watching a Frontline episode about young people, protesting and fighting to remain a democracy. Whatever they can do against the tyranny of China they'll do. And here we have people, for a few bucks--for a continued (since Obama) great stock market, who will let ours be destroyed in three short years.

Trump has severely damaged the Department of State and the Department of Justice. He's damaged the military. He's emasculated the Department of the Environment, Interior and Education.  He has injured our relationships with England, France, Germany and other allies, while cozying up to Russia and N. Korea.  He has failed to protect the national parks and failed to assist US Citizens in Puerto Rico during national disasters.

What he has done is to make a bunch of money by having the secret service stay at his resorts frequently, at dramatic costs, and he has played a lot of golf.

He got the message from the impeachment. He can do anything he wants. He can murder a kitty cat on the White House lawn and 40% of Americans would defend him.

Geez.

General Kelly on Donald Trump:

https://www.theatlantic.com/po...osted&yptr=yahoo

irwin posted:

General Kelly on Donald Trump:

https://www.theatlantic.com/po...osted&yptr=yahoo

This ought to result in an entertainingly deranged Twitter response from the dotard-in-chief.

billhike posted:

irwin posted:

General Kelly on Donald Trump:

https://www.theatlantic.com/po...osted&yptr=yahoo

This ought to result in an entertainingly deranged Twitter response from the dotard-in-chief.

And, bingo.

billhike posted:

irwin posted:

General Kelly on Donald Trump:

https://www.theatlantic.com/po...osted&yptr=yahoo

This ought to result in an entertainingly deranged Twitter response from the dotard-in-chief.

Most of them are

Michael Avenatti was found guilty of some crimes today.  Please refer to my tag line below.

irwin posted:

Michael Avenatti was found guilty of some crimes today.

Actually all three he was charged with. Down he goes. CNN really gave him too much positive attention a year ago. Of course his client, Stormy Daniels, was 100% right, but she was undone by his Avenatti's grandstanding. (And of course the corruption of justice that continues unabated daily in the Trump regime.)

However, this was good news. I'll let CNN--where you get a lot more truth than Fox State News--explain what happened:

"President Donald Trump is deeply invested in the idea that there is a 'Deep State' embedded within the government bureaucracy -- and centered in the Department of Justice -- which actively worked to defeat him in 2016 and then sought to undermine him once he won the presidency.

That conspiracy theory, which has never had much merit, suffered a near-fatal blow Friday afternoon when the Department of Justice declined to pursue criminal charges against former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe."

The dog walk in the sun at 9 above was far more enjoyable than the one in the dark at 6 below. She seemed to agree.

Bernie now has a significant lead in national polls and is causing panic in the Democratic party (see Carville's comments).  It appears that the Democrats move to the left has resulted in Bernie becoming the person to beat.  He has been coddled by the press as was Trump when he first ran in the primaries.  Might we see the same result?  Or will Bloomberg become the new darling of the more moderate part of the Democratic party resulting in a billionaire vs billionaire presidential contest?

thistlintom posted:

Bernie now has a significant lead in national polls and is causing panic in the Democratic party (see Carville's comments).  It appears that the Democrats move to the left has resulted in Bernie becoming the person to beat.  He has been coddled by the press as was Trump when he first ran in the primaries.  Might we see the same result?  Or will Bloomberg become the new darling of the more moderate part of the Democratic party resulting in a billionaire vs billionaire presidential contest?

I think it is more complicated than that.  Bernie plus Warren combined have never reached 40% in national polls.  They normally combine at around 37%.  But Warren has faded, and Klobuchar -- and of course, Bloomberg -- have risen.  So there is now an untenable game of 4 on 2 or, really, 3 on 1.  This will be a repeat of R's nominating Trump (apart from the racist, lawless, imbecilic, malignant narcissism thing) by not allowing it to dwindle to 1 on 1 early unless at least 2 out of Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Biden, Bloomberg drop out at the very very latest, the day after Super Tuesday.  And preferably before. 

winetarelli posted:

thistlintom posted:

Bernie now has a significant lead in national polls and is causing panic in the Democratic party (see Carville's comments).  It appears that the Democrats move to the left has resulted in Bernie becoming the person to beat.  He has been coddled by the press as was Trump when he first ran in the primaries.  Might we see the same result?  Or will Bloomberg become the new darling of the more moderate part of the Democratic party resulting in a billionaire vs billionaire presidential contest?

I think it is more complicated than that.  Bernie plus Warren combined have never reached 40% in national polls.  They normally combine at around 37%.  But Warren has faded, and Klobuchar -- and of course, Bloomberg -- have risen.  So there is now an untenable game of 4 on 2 or, really, 3 on 1.  This will be a repeat of R's nominating Trump (apart from the racist, lawless, imbecilic, malignant narcissism thing) by not allowing it to dwindle to 1 on 1 early unless at least 2 out of Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Biden, Bloomberg drop out at the very very latest, the day after Super Tuesday.  And preferably before. 

Yes, it can get more complicated.  It wouldn't surprise me if there became a brokered convention.

As another note, I saw that Bloomberg is considering Hillary as a VP pick.

thistlintom posted:

winetarelli posted:

thistlintom posted:

Bernie now has a significant lead in national polls and is causing panic in the Democratic party (se

As another note, I saw that Bloomberg is considering Hillary as a VP pick.

Doubtful.  The only reporting I've seen on that is from the Drudge Report, hardly a reliable source especially given it's loyalty to Trump.  I expect it is nothing more than trouble-making or yet another attempt to stir up his Hillary-hating base.

Agreed on Hilary being largely / entirely fake news.

Also agreed this might go to the convention.  If it does, don't be surprised if they draft Sherrod Brown.  (Which, apart from him being way too protectionist for me, might actually be the best result in terms of giving Democrats a real chance at winning.)

I think Hillary and Bloomberg are both from New York and I believe you can’t have two from the same state.  
meanwhile, talking about a brokered convention always starts around now.  But the prior brokered convention was 1952.  

bman posted:

thistlintom posted:

winetarelli posted:

thistlintom posted:

Bernie now has a significant lead in national polls and is causing panic in the Democratic party (se

As another note, I saw that Bloomberg is considering Hillary as a VP pick.

Doubtful.  The only reporting I've seen on that is from the Drudge Report, hardly a reliable source especially given it's loyalty to Trump.  I expect it is nothing more than trouble-making or yet another attempt to stir up his Hillary-hating base.

Being reported  by NY Post and Daily Mail also.  Maybe a trial balloon, but appears that it has been considered by Bloomberg.  I imagine they could do something about being in the same state, wouldn't be the first time residences have changed.  I think the idea of putting her on the ticket is silly and too early to think about.

thistlintom posted:

bman posted:

thistlintom posted:

winetarelli posted:

thistlintom posted:

Bernie now has a significant lead in national polls and is causing panic in the Democratic party (se

As another note, I saw that Bloomberg is considering Hillary as a VP pick.

Doubtful.  The only reporting I've seen on that is from the Drudge Report, hardly a reliable source especially given it's loyalty to Trump.  I expect it is nothing more than trouble-making or yet another attempt to stir up his Hillary-hating base.

Being reported  by NY Post and Daily Mail also.  Maybe a trial balloon, but appears that it has been considered by Bloomberg.  I imagine they could do something about being in the same state, wouldn't be the first time residences have changed.  I think the idea of putting her on the ticket is silly and too early to think about.

Daily Mail is quoting the Drudge Report so no more reliable than before, and the Post supports Trump so again, not the most reliable of sources.  

thistlintom posted:

winetarelli posted:

thistlintom posted:

Bernie now has a significant lead in national polls and is causing panic in the Democratic party (see Carville's comments).  It appears that the Democrats move to the left has resulted in Bernie becoming the person to beat.  He has been coddled by the press as was Trump when he first ran in the primaries.  Might we see the same result?  Or will Bloomberg become the new darling of the more moderate part of the Democratic party resulting in a billionaire vs billionaire presidential contest?

I think it is more complicated than that.  Bernie plus Warren combined have never reached 40% in national polls.  They normally combine at around 37%.  But Warren has faded, and Klobuchar -- and of course, Bloomberg -- have risen.  So there is now an untenable game of 4 on 2 or, really, 3 on 1.  This will be a repeat of R's nominating Trump (apart from the racist, lawless, imbecilic, malignant narcissism thing) by not allowing it to dwindle to 1 on 1 early unless at least 2 out of Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Biden, Bloomberg drop out at the very very latest, the day after Super Tuesday.  And preferably before. 

Yes, it can get more complicated.  It wouldn't surprise me if there became a brokered convention.

As another note, I saw that Bloomberg is considering Hillary as a VP pick.

Just shows how desperate the Dems are.  Terrible candidates and potentially a worse VP pick (Hillary)?  Oh please let it happen and guarantee a Trump landslide! 

Howard Schultz could have been a great choice. But you “woke” morons quashed that. 

Anyone else remember a non-contributing clown whining about insults and name-calling?

irwin posted:

I think Hillary and Bloomberg are both from New York and I believe you can’t have two from the same state.  
meanwhile, talking about a brokered convention always starts around now.  But the prior brokered convention was 1952.  

True. The same was being said four years ago about the republicans. 

I am no democrat, but I don’t understand why they start their primary season with two states that don’t represent the overall makeup of their party well. 

wineart 2 posted:

irwin posted:

I think Hillary and Bloomberg are both from New York and I believe you can’t have two from the same state.  
meanwhile, talking about a brokered convention always starts around now.  But the prior brokered convention was 1952.  

True. The same was being said four years ago about the republicans. 

I am no democrat, but I don’t understand why they start their primary season with two states that don’t represent the overall makeup of their party well. 

I think both parties do that, no?

Makes no sense to me either. 

Bloomberg has no delegates. Is running 3rd or 4th in national polls. Bernie has ~ the most delegates and is running 1st in national polls as well as most Super Tuesday states. So, what do the others do?  Decide to go after Bloomberg and leave Bernie alone. We are watching R 2016 all over again. 

Actually, if Bernie gets the nomination it might be more like 1972.  

irwin posted:

Actually, if Bernie gets the nomination it might be more like 1972.  

This, too. 

We are 46 days into the year:

Trump has been impeached and acquitted. And is fully using the Justice Department to re-write history and exact revenge on his “enemies”.

The Democrats, in response, are poised to nominate a (declared on video) Soviet-loving, conscientious objector, 78 year old, self-described Socialist. 

Something something Nigerian “sock puppet” something Buttigieg disproven conspiracy theory Lis Smith something.

Coronavirus, the worst flu season in a decade.

Richard Dawkins is trending because he thinks what we should all be talking about right now is eugenics (and how it would totes for real work).

... 

winetarelli posted:

We are 46 days into the year:

Trump has been impeached and acquitted. And is fully using the Justice Department to re-write history and exact revenge on his “enemies”.

The Democrats, in response, are poised to nominate a (declared on video) Soviet-loving, conscientious objector, 78 year old, self-described Socialist. 

Something something Nigerian “sock puppet” something Buttigieg disproven conspiracy theory Lis Smith something.

Coronavirus, the worst flu season in a decade.

Richard Dawkins is trending because he thinks what we should all be talking about right now is eugenics (and how it would totes for real work).

... 

Well ,that was uplifting.     It's way too early to be pessimistic.  Let's see where things are in March, and take a deep breath until then.

PH

purplehaze posted:

winetarelli posted:

We are 46 days into the year:

Trump has been impeached and acquitted. And is fully using the Justice Department to re-write history and exact revenge on his “enemies”.

The Democrats, in response, are poised to nominate a (declared on video) Soviet-loving, conscientious objector, 78 year old, self-described Socialist. 

Something something Nigerian “sock puppet” something Buttigieg disproven conspiracy theory Lis Smith something.

Coronavirus, the worst flu season in a decade.

Richard Dawkins is trending because he thinks what we should all be talking about right now is eugenics (and how it would totes for real work).

... 

Well ,that was uplifting.     It's way too early to be pessimistic.  Let's see where things are in March, and take a deep breath until then.

PH

Exactly! 

winetarelli posted:

We are 46 days into the year:

Trump has been impeached and acquitted. And is fully using the Justice Department to re-write history and exact revenge on his “enemies”.

The Democrats, in response, are poised to nominate a (declared on video) Soviet-loving, conscientious objector, 78 year old, self-described Socialist. 

Something something Nigerian “sock puppet” something Buttigieg disproven conspiracy theory Lis Smith something.

Coronavirus, the worst flu season in a decade.

Richard Dawkins is trending because he thinks what we should all be talking about right now is eugenics (and how it would totes for real work).

... 

Bernie Saunders is considered a whatever socialist or communist in America only. In the rest of the western world he’d be center left given the ideas he espouses. And given that he is not a corporate shill like most of the favourites the democratic machinery is forcing on voters, he is the only one who can appeal to the masses of angry Trump voters who unfortunately will decide the next election.

mimik posted:

winetarelli posted:

We are 46 days into the year:

Trump has been impeached and acquitted. And is fully using the Justice Department to re-write history and exact revenge on his “enemies”.

The Democrats, in response, are poised to nominate a (declared on video) Soviet-loving, conscientious objector, 78 year old, self-described Socialist. 

Something something Nigerian “sock puppet” something Buttigieg disproven conspiracy theory Lis Smith something.

Coronavirus, the worst flu season in a decade.

Richard Dawkins is trending because he thinks what we should all be talking about right now is eugenics (and how it would totes for real work).

... 

Bernie Saunders is considered a whatever socialist or communist in America only. In the rest of the western world he’d be center left given the ideas he espouses. And given that he is not a corporate shill like most of the favourites the democratic machinery is forcing on voters, he is the only one who can appeal to the masses of angry Trump voters who unfortunately will decide the next election.

Gotta disagree with some of this, Mim. Bernie has no chance against Trump, if only because doubling the debt that Trump is already growing by leaps and bounds disqualifies him. Not that Congress would let him do much of his program. Including most Democrats, mercifully.  And he calls himself a socialist. 

bman posted:

mimik posted:

winetarelli posted:

We are 46 days into the year:

Trump has been impeached and acquitted. And is fully using the Justice Department to re-write history and exact revenge on his “enemies”.

The Democrats, in response, are poised to nominate a (declared on video) Soviet-loving, conscientious objector, 78 year old, self-described Socialist. 

Something something Nigerian “sock puppet” something Buttigieg disproven conspiracy theory Lis Smith something.

Coronavirus, the worst flu season in a decade.

Richard Dawkins is trending because he thinks what we should all be talking about right now is eugenics (and how it would totes for real work).

... 

Bernie Saunders is considered a whatever socialist or communist in America only. In the rest of the western world he’d be center left given the ideas he espouses. And given that he is not a corporate shill like most of the favourites the democratic machinery is forcing on voters, he is the only one who can appeal to the masses of angry Trump voters who unfortunately will decide the next election.

Gotta disagree with some of this, Mim. Bernie has no chance against Trump, if only because doubling the debt that Trump is already growing by leaps and bounds disqualifies him. Not that Congress would let him do much of his program. Including most Democrats, mercifully.  And he calls himself a socialist. 

He honeymooned in the Soviet Union and has supported Castro and Venezuela.  

thistlintom posted:

bman posted:

mimik posted:

winetarelli posted:

We are 46 days into the year:

Trump has been impeached and acquitted. And is fully using the Justice Department to re-write history and exact revenge on his “enemies”.

The Democrats, in response, are poised to nominate a (declared on video) Soviet-loving, conscientious objector, 78 year old, self-described Socialist. 

Something something Nigerian “sock puppet” something Buttigieg disproven conspiracy theory Lis Smith something.

Coronavirus, the worst flu season in a decade.

Richard Dawkins is trending because he thinks what we should all be talking about right now is eugenics (and how it would totes for real work).

... 

Bernie Saunders is considered a whatever socialist or communist in America only. In the rest of the western world he’d be center left given the ideas he espouses. And given that he is not a corporate shill like most of the favourites the democratic machinery is forcing on voters, he is the only one who can appeal to the masses of angry Trump voters who unfortunately will decide the next election.

Gotta disagree with some of this, Mim. Bernie has no chance against Trump, if only because doubling the debt that Trump is already growing by leaps and bounds disqualifies him. Not that Congress would let him do much of his program. Including most Democrats, mercifully.  And he calls himself a socialist. 

He honeymooned in the Soviet Union and has supported Castro and Venezuela.  

That too. The Republicans would have a field day with that and everything else. 

Like I said in the past, anyone but the Orange Dump.  If anyone still votes for the Orange Dump after all that he's done, well, that says a lot about you.  Maybe the US needs someone like Bernie to pull back hard in the other direction in order to move the country back to the center.

Personally I’d like to see a joint ticket of Pete and Amy. Don’t care who has which role; they both seem to be the closest choices to rational human beings. 

billhike posted:

Personally I’d like to see a joint ticket of Pete and Amy. Don’t care who has which role; they both seem to be the closest choices to rational human beings. 

Pete really doesn't resonate with people outside a specific demographic and does even worse than Warren in some head-to-head match-up polls with Trump.  But, overall, taking everything into account, of the people running: if I could snap my fingers and one would be President and the other VP, it would probably be Amy (President) and Pete (VP).  Biden has bigger positives than either, but also bigger negatives.  Bloomberg has the very biggest positives, but definitely the biggest negative of the four sane candidates running.  Overall, my choice is Biden for electability in the General without sacrificing any major principles I have.

(Warren and Sanders are both infinitely better than Trump, and I would actively volunteer for either in the GE, but both are also lightyears from the other four in my preference hierarchy.)

For those who say that the country won't vote for a gay guy (Pete), let's remember this: There are alot of people who won't vote for a pro-choice candidate.  All the Dems are that.  There is a lot of overlap in people who won't vote for a pro-choice candidate and people who won't vote for a gay guy.  So, I don't think he really loses many votes over his sexual orientation.

irwin posted:

For those who say that the country won't vote for a gay guy (Pete), let's remember this: There are alot of people who won't vote for a pro-choice candidate.  All the Dems are that.  There is a lot of overlap in people who won't vote for a pro-choice candidate and people who won't vote for a gay guy.  So, I don't think he really loses many votes over his sexual orientation.

 

I tend to agree with this.  But, for whatever reason, Pete does very poorly (relative to others in the field) in head-to-head matchups with Trump.  My guess is it has more to do with his age and ethos than his sexuality, but I don't know.

winetarelli posted:

irwin posted:

For those who say that the country won't vote for a gay guy (Pete), let's remember this: There are alot of people who won't vote for a pro-choice candidate.  All the Dems are that.  There is a lot of overlap in people who won't vote for a pro-choice candidate and people who won't vote for a gay guy.  So, I don't think he really loses many votes over his sexual orientation.

 

I tend to agree with this.  But, for whatever reason, Pete does very poorly (relative to others in the field) in head-to-head matchups with Trump.  My guess is it has more to do with his age and ethos than his sexuality, but I don't know.

I think it is mostly age. People think that with age comes wisdom.  However, with age comes senility too.  While Bernie, Warren and Bloomberg do not seem senile (today), Biden seems like he is losing it a bit, and Trump....well, he's mentally incompetent, but it doesn't seem like he is worse now than a few years back.

irwin posted:

winetarelli posted:

irwin posted:

For those who say that the country won't vote for a gay guy (Pete), let's remember this: There are alot of people who won't vote for a pro-choice candidate.  All the Dems are that.  There is a lot of overlap in people who won't vote for a pro-choice candidate and people who won't vote for a gay guy.  So, I don't think he really loses many votes over his sexual orientation.

 

I tend to agree with this.  But, for whatever reason, Pete does very poorly (relative to others in the field) in head-to-head matchups with Trump.  My guess is it has more to do with his age and ethos than his sexuality, but I don't know.

I think it is mostly age. People think that with age comes wisdom.  However, with age comes senility too.  While Bernie, Warren and Bloomberg do not seem senile (today), Biden seems like he is losing it a bit, and Trump....well, he's mentally incompetent, but it doesn't seem like he is worse now than a few years back.

Pete still has more political experience and has won more elections than the current President when he was elected. Also, he's not a soulless racist malevolent narcissist. But all that can be said about every other candidate. 

billhike posted:

Personally I’d like to see a joint ticket of Pete and Amy. Don’t care who has which role; they both seem to be the closest choices to rational human beings. 

Biden for stability, knowledge, and ease of election.

Amy as VP to provide youth, and a female.  Would be able to step in, in case the old guy doesn't make it

Amy needs to be on ticket with somebody.

Warren, Sanders, are too far left, and Mike has a lot of baggage.  Pete, need a bit more "maturity" and get to obtain more support

I'm thinking that if a white centrist wins the nomination then Kamala Harris or Stacy Abrams might be a better choice than another centrist.  The fact that the latter almost won the governorship of Georgia would make her especially attractive methinks.