Young Trump staffers are complaining they can't date in DC because everyone hates them

[HomerJS]

So remind me again if you're pro democracy or anti democracy, or is it completely situation dependent and becomes "dangerous" if voters don't select the "correct" candidate in your view?

At this point I would settle for a candidate who isn't racist as the "correct" candidate. Even my standards have fallen with this guy

 

[zinfamous]

So remind me again if you're pro democracy or anti democracy, or is it completely situation dependent and becomes "dangerous" if voters don't select the "correct" candidate in your view?

Democracy is always under threat by the poorly educating wielding their power of the vote. The FF always understood this, and democracy has always gone on under this shaky foundation. It was understood that all it takes is a tyrant to bend the will of the rabble, stifle the press, and threaten the judiciary, and democracy crumbles.

We've always known this in this country, and it seems that you and your ilk have openly embraced this, and here you are using your newspeak to pervert the threats towards democracy into your own gaslighted perspective. Being Pro-democracy is not in any way independent of the notion that a legitimately elected candidate can, by intent, destroy that democracy. Likewise, there is no logical assumption that the mere legitimate election of a candidate is, by virtue, a defense of that democracy. Actions matter, don't they? That is exactly what was always understood to be the central threat against democracy. I thought you were a big fan of that "elections have consequences" mumbo jumbo.,

Washington said it. Jefferson said it. Kennedy said it. Your hero saint Reagan said it. Kruschev said it. Putin did it.

Congratulations, idiot. Too bad that "elite" learning scared you away from a proper civics education.

 

[mikeymikec]

At this point I would settle for a candidate who isn't racist as the "correct" candidate. Even my standards have fallen with this guy

Which is what I predicted to be America's post-Trump problem: People being positively relieved that their President hasn't done the presidential equivalent of wetting the bed or throwing a tantrum in the middle of a supermarket, let alone declared war on the media and/or anyone else they don't like that day (and a million other problematic behaviours for someone who has reached adulthood let alone being elected President): The relief IMO is going to be so great that politicians can go back to their pre-Trump/Brexit era of unethical behaviours and yet barely scrape the surface of general* public outrage because at least it's not as bad as what Trump did pretty much every single day of his presidency.

I'd like to think that the opposite reaction might occur to politicians pro Trump/Brexit, ie. a significant increase in outrage when politicians are caught doing things they shouldn't, but I think that things will have to get far, far worse than they currently are for that to happen.

* - I say general because if anyone thinks the whataboutism is strong with Trump supporters now, they're not even vaguely prepared for what will happen post-Trump (unless Trump pulls an undeniable 100% Hitler).

 

[Commodus]

Which is what I predicted to be America's post-Trump problem: People being positively relieved that their President hasn't done the presidential equivalent of wetting the bed or throwing a tantrum in the middle of a supermarket, let alone declared war on the media and/or anyone else they don't like that day (and a million other problematic behaviours for someone who has reached adulthood let alone being elected President): The relief IMO is going to be so great that politicians can go back to their pre-Trump/Brexit era of unethical behaviours and yet barely scrape the surface of general* public outrage because at least it's not as bad as what Trump did pretty much every single day of his presidency.

I'd like to think that the opposite reaction might occur to politicians pro Trump/Brexit, ie. a significant increase in outrage when politicians are caught doing things they shouldn't, but I think that things will have to get far, far worse than they currently are for that to happen.

* - I say general because if anyone thinks the whataboutism is strong with Trump supporters now, they're not even vaguely prepared for what will happen post-Trump (unless Trump pulls an undeniable 100% Hitler).

That will be a problem, but at the same time... it'd be a start. A functioning government that isn't actively fostering bigotry, actually works with longstanding allies (while not pandering to enemies) and acknowledges scientific realities would at least give us something to work with.

The real danger, to me, is that too many people are disaffected and hand 2020 to Trump by either voting Green/Libertarian or just refusing to vote in the first place. I know we have a few people on this forum who take that holier-than-thou "the whole system is broken, maaaaan" attitude and end up reinforcing the very system they claim to hate.

Like it or not, the only realistic solution for the next two-plus years is to vote exclusively Democrat and to encourage everyone else to do the same. We can take a look at more nuanced voting and systemic reform once Trump is out and the Republicans no longer have control of both sides of Congress.

 

[glenn1]

Like it or not, the only realistic solution for the next two-plus years is to vote exclusively Democrat and to encourage everyone else to do the same. We can take a look at more nuanced voting and systemic reform once Trump is out and the Republicans no longer have control of both sides of Congress.

Utterly wrong, you vote for the better candidate regardless of their party affiliation. Thinking like yours is what returns known criminals to political power because "OMG the other party is Hitler" or whatever. Your position is what allows folks like William Jefferson (the cash in his freezer guy) to stay in Congress for decades despite committing crimes. The idea that any Democratic candidate by default is better than any Republican candidate (or vice versa) without any further examination whatsoever is a wretched idea and honestly would disqualify you from voting in a better world.

 

[fskimospy]

Utterly wrong, you vote for the better candidate regardless of their party affiliation. Thinking like yours is what returns known criminals to political power because "OMG the other party is Hitler" or whatever. Your position is what allows folks like William Jefferson (the cash in his freezer guy) to stay in Congress for decades despite committing crimes. The idea that any Democratic candidate by default is better than any Republican candidate (or vice versa) without any further examination whatsoever is a wretched idea and honestly would disqualify you from voting in a better world.

I will 100% agree with you if you can point me to a single, solitary Republican member of Congress that has acted to check Trump’s corruption in a meaningful way. Just one. Take as much time as you need.

If you can’t then logic dictates that yes, any Democrat is better than a Republican. This is just common sense.

 

[Commodus]

Utterly wrong, you vote for the better candidate regardless of their party affiliation. Thinking like yours is what returns known criminals to political power because "OMG the other party is Hitler" or whatever. Your position is what allows folks like William Jefferson (the cash in his freezer guy) to stay in Congress for decades despite committing crimes. The idea that any Democratic candidate by default is better than any Republican candidate (or vice versa) without any further examination whatsoever is a wretched idea and honestly would disqualify you from voting in a better world.

I'm not saying that as a general rule; I'm saying that in response to the specific situation. With that said, I should probably amend it to "never vote for the Republican, and so long as the Democrat is reasonably upstanding, vote for them."

 

[trenchfoot]

I will 100% agree with you if you can point me to a single, solitary Republican member of Congress that has acted to check Trump’s corruption in a meaningful way. Just one. Take as much time as you need.

If you can’t then logic dictates that yes, any Democrat is better than a Republican. This is just common sense.

That Frankenstein of a base the GOP rabble roused into existence of which Trump then snatched from their grip has gotten the Repubs in the legislature cowering in their closets. Trump owns every single one of their asses, he knows it and he's taking full advantage of it. In essence, the monster that Trump has beguiled into his control is now the controlling interest of the party and everyone else in the party is going along for the ride, completely helpless and hapless over it and for the fact that it's all self-inflicted is beyond ironic, it's incredibly horrifying. It's bizzare.

For the parrty faithful though, hey, it's the new normal and meh, so long as it's their monster and the guy who has some kind of influence over it is also of their own making, well then, it's all good no matter that they've already got one foot over the precipice and leaning in that direction.

 

[fskimospy]

That Frankenstein of a base the GOP rabble roused into existence of which Trump then snatched from their grip has gotten the Repubs in the legislature cowering in their closets. Trump owns every single one of their asses, he knows it and he's taking full advantage of it. In essence, the monster that Trump has beguiled into his control is now the controlling interest of the party and everyone else in the party is going along for the ride, completely helpless and hapless over it and for the fact that it's all self-inflicted is beyond ironic, it's incredibly horrifying. It's bizzare.

For the parrty faithful though, hey, it's the new normal and meh, so long as it's their monster and the guy who has some kind of influence over it is also of their own making, well then, it's all good no matter that they've already got one foot over the precipice and leaning in that direction.

It's as simple as this: the party in control of the branch of government tasked with overseeing and preventing corruption and illegal behavior in the executive branch has abdicated all responsibility to their constitutional duties. In fact, they are actively enabling further corruption. When the party that controls a branch of government is no longer performing its required tasks that party should be replaced.

 

[glenn1]

I will 100% agree with you if you can point me to a single, solitary Republican member of Congress that has acted to check Trump’s corruption in a meaningful way. Just one. Take as much time as you need.

If you can’t then logic dictates that yes, any Democrat is better than a Republican. This is just common sense.

So you’d vote for a Democratic criminal over a Republican you felt “has not acted to check Trump’s corruption”?

 

[fskimospy]

So you’d vote for a Democratic criminal over a Republican you felt “has not acted to check Trump’s corruption”?

Yep. A single corrupt member of Congress can't do that much damage while an unchecked president can do enormous damage. The only meaningful way to check our current president who appears likely to be engaging in widespread criminal activity is by giving Democrats control of the chambers of congress, the committees with subpoena power, and the powers of impeachment. Everything else Congress could be doing for the next two years pales in comparison to that.

To be clear, if someone running on the Republican ticket pledged to caucus with the Democrats to give them control of the chamber I would be fine in voting for that individual as well. While how they vote on legislation is important if Democrats control at least one chamber we'll just get gridlock anyway so I don't really care that much. Control of Congress's oversight powers is what matters.

 

[cytg111]

So you’d vote for a Democratic criminal over a Republican you felt “has not acted to check Trump’s corruption”?

Your country is being run by a Russian sock puppet. Are you a patriot?

 

[HomerJS]

So you’d vote for a Democratic criminal over a Republican you felt “has not acted to check Trump’s corruption”?

You didn't answer his question.

Check that you refused to answer his question. Wonder why??