|
Ok Comboomer posted:You know the Simpsons and Family Guy and Bob’s Burgers and a jillion live a action sitcoms on FOX have all been emphatically anti-GOP right? This is at least ten years old now: 
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2020 23:08
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 10:31 |
|
|
bobua posted:Do the steroids help with coughing? I seem to recall having an crazy bad cough a few years ago and getting whatever over the top prescription medicine for a cough was and it doing nothing, then googling and reading a lot on 'yeah science blows at coughs.' As near as I can tell even narcotic cough medicines just make you mind the cough less.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2020 21:23
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WmTsLO-hUI
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2020 09:40
|
|
|
Antifa Turkeesian posted:Assigned by cable news on election night 2000 when they figured out that it would be too close to call. Red was given to republicans specifically to avoid the appearance of red-baiting the democrats, as I recall. It was a natural evolution of red, white, and blue being all over the election graphics. Wasn't because of red-baiting exactly. Before then media would routinely assign one party red on the map and the other blue, but there wasn't any consistency and it would go both ways. That year the big maps were red for Republicans and blue for Democrats, and it actually stuck since election night was a month of news.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2020 23:01
|
|
|
letthereberock posted:A goon in another thread pointed out how funny it is the “revisionist history” is thrown around as a pejorative while you would never hear anyone talk about “revisionist chemistry” or “revisionist engineering”, because in those fields it’s accepted that theories and practice should be modified based on new/better information. History is the only field where the idea that our understanding should grow and change over time is intensely controversial to the general public. When Trump rants about new aircraft carriers not using steam catapults, that's him complaining about revisionist engineering.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2020 15:35
|
|
|
Aramis posted:2,800 Kg is a lot of mass, we are talking 20 to 280 million$ spent just to bring it up there, depending on how old they are Looking up the numbers, I think one is a Soviet comm/navigation satellite from 1989 and one is a Chinese rocket body from 2009. Edit: Beaten.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2020 03:39
|
|
|
I was going to joke "What could a soybean cost, $10?" And then that's almost exactly it. 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2020 04:35
|
|
|
Reagan also benefited greatly from the Soviet Union imploding on his watch, regardless of what role he had in it. Plus he really inspired a lot of young people into conservatism, in numbers we're just not seeing with Trump no matter how many shots of a handful of Proud Boys people like to talk about whenever it's pointed out. In office his popularity went up and down, but he crushed two elections and then his VP did the same in what was widely considered to be effectively a vote for a third term. Monster or not, he was transformative of politics and not just in a "burn it down" way like Trump. Also when he went out of office it was imperative that the right in lockstep past him as the modern era's greatest president. Just because in the post-Reagan era, if Reagan wasn't a great president then there never has been a great conservative president, and what conservative can say that? You can say "party of Lincoln!" or call back to TR and Eisenhower as successful Republicans, but you can't really cite any of their policies or stances to sell anything in a modern Republican platform like Democrats can with FDR, LBJ, or so on for all their flaws.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2020 02:11
|
|
|
^^^^^ If that leads you to "Hillary would have done all of the same dumb things Trump did" it's just as idiotic whether your reason both sides is the same is "capitalism" or not. Nothing new. Remember that both-sides idiots also claimed that Gore would have invaded Iraq to finish what his daddy started just like Bush did, and that Clinton totes would have started a war with Iran since you know working on that whole deal just would make her seem more bloodthirsty when she threw it away.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2020 16:30
|
|
|
There are always, always, a bunch of people who demand the standard of 
Killer robot fucked around with this message at 04:09 on Oct 27, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2020 04:02
|
|
|
Edmund Lava posted:She’s disappeared for weeks before, hell she didn’t even live in the White House for a least six months. The biggest irony about Hillary was how for as mad as the whole country was about a FLOTUS who was openly in a marriage of equals with the president, she never had the actual power in the administration that Nancy Reagan did.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2020 00:01
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Do you think Trump was going to dangle a pardon to Keanu or whatever to get him to say "Yes, Covid is over. Thanks, Donald J. Trump. You have truly made America, great, again." 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2020 10:07
|
|
|
Sarcastro posted:Hold up; go back. This loving idiot didn't know that something called RUSSIA TODAY was "Russian"? Fire him into the sun. Not saying you're totally wrong, but there's a reason RT dropped the full name years ago now, and that's because people were too easily connecting the dots.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2020 00:04
|
|
|
hcreight posted:https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1323089760190124032 Do we really expect posts like this to end after Biden's like at 300+ EVs? It'll be all 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2020 04:07
|
|
|
Abner Assington posted:The last good Republican, imo. My grandfather (who was in local government not far from Dwyer's house/senate district) knew him. My father has a story about seeing him at the table meeting with his father about some sort of business or another one morning. He's in the camp that Dwyer was framed. But he buys into a bunch of mythical things. Killer robot fucked around with this message at 01:02 on Nov 3, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2020 00:59
|
|
|
Terebus posted:
I've said before that one of the big political divides in this country, which exists on both right and left, is whether people realize any of their stances are actually unpopular. Even the stances that should be popular and only aren't because of lots of propaganda and misunderstandings. Especially the ones where it depends how you phrase it, like describing ACA features without using the O-word. On the one hand, you have people that think "this idea is great but we need to figure out a strategy to convince everyone else" and on the other hand there are people who think "there's a huge silent majority that will stream in if only the party was brave enough to yell it louder."
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2020 00:16
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:You're also getting way too specific here. The learn2code bullshit would be problematic no matter what particular skillset was being pumped up. The issue is that "job retraining" sounds good on its face, but it's a horrifically bad solution to problems like this. It's essentially the same as talking about having "access" to "affordable" healthcare as opposed to just having healthcare. What this means is that there's a divide between the part of the left willing to lie and say "We're bringing the coal jobs back" and those who are not. There's not a way to untie that knot.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2020 08:36
|
|
|
Kalit posted:It's Melania's revenge/going away present for the Bidens Makes me wonder if she'll even bother with a weirdass Christmas display. Since those were actually kinda neat.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2020 02:58
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Don't be so quick to take this at face value - it may well be a feint. Boldly proclaiming it directly on Fox News is a bit too straight ahead for real statements. Saying that the SC and filibuster are off table will help cool Republican voter enthusiasm in the runoffs, and Manchin is the only D who could credibly say it. Yeah. It's entirely reasonable he means it 100% but it doesn't matter since it would be equally in his interest to say this if he was helping to draft the bill right after the interview.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2020 06:14
|
|
|
mediaphage posted:as we discuss the proper names for the parties, here are the icons they had on my ballot Wait, I thought the log cabin wasn't the straight party.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2020 03:05
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:"It totally would have been a landslide if the person who couldn't win the primaries had been on the ballot in the general" Pretty much this. I voted for Bernie in the primary too, but he didn't run a great campaign. Even with four years of setup he couldn't match the performance he had in the "gosh he only lost because it was a last minute protest campaign" of 2016. I get that people want Bernie to be an amazing campaigner who could beat anyone in a fair race (because they like him) and that they want Trump to be a weak-rear end joke that anyone competent could beat (because it's troubling so many Americans want what he's selling) but neither is particularly true.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2020 03:25
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:No? Change is very possible but the method you're arguing really doesn't make any sense. FDR didn't need to be particularly bipartisan when he came into office with 300+ Dems in the House, 59 in the Senate, and the modern filibuster not existing. He took office after Republicans had done gently caress all not through nine months of covid but three years of Great Depression, and with it came almost 100 flipped House seats and 11 Senate.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2020 09:31
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:Something that hasn't really been brought up, but Clinton was also supposed to have a Blue Wave, which manifested as actively losing seats. At the time I & many others chalked it up to Clinton leeching state funds towards her campaign, but post-2020 I'm wondering if the the The Democrat Party leadership blob have just lost all possible competency when it comes to downballot general elections. If you mean in 2016, Democrats gained six seats in the House and two in the Senate. They had hoped to flip one or both chambers, but then they'd also hoped to keep the presidency. No one really brings up Clinton's role in winning those seats for multiple reasons: it was fairly anemic regardless of her impact on downballot races, and it's not generally expected for a losing candidate to flip Congress in their party's favor. Edit: Forgot the third Senate flip was a special election. Killer robot fucked around with this message at 03:28 on Nov 19, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2020 03:24
|
|
|
There's a lot of things I have zero confidence in Joe Biden getting right, and with a Republican senate I'm not gonna bet on any major spending initiatives in the next two years. But saying Biden won't even attempt improved passenger rail once in office is a "Hillary's gonna start a war with Iran" level of ignoring a candidate's existing interests and inserting a mental construct of a generic supervillain.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2020 12:03
|
|
|
I once worked for a smooth-talking businessman I wouldn't trust for much, but he apparently had one statement of how he worked that resonated with me. In every room there's going to be someone that knows the real story, who isn't going to fall for tricks and propaganda like all those other idiots. Focus on him: he's the mark.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2020 10:43
|
|
|
Pick posted:It strikes me as a very trains, planes, and automobiles premise, but ideally in the end the boorish turd guy dies Already done, just with two ex-presidents: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_57GKDXmXKk
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2020 23:54
|
|
|
Red posted:
"We need to keep the liberals from making fake troll accounts!!"
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2020 00:27
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:There really wasn't a serious effort to overturn the 2016 election outside of correctly pointing to shady poo poo that had happened and Hillary being like, "Knock yourself out" over the Green Party grift poo poo. The latter's not great, but Hillary conceded pretty quickly and Obama set up the transfer pretty quickly. Pretty much this. There was the Green Party grift, some proto-Resistance Hillary loyalists in no real positions of power, and the last gasp of "Here's how Bernie can still win" Twitter. Are any of those "the left?" That depends on who you ask since that's not a clearly defined term; however, even if all three of them count the effort they made has only the barest superficial resemblance to what we're seeing from Trump and his loyalists today.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2020 05:23
|
|
|
mdemone posted:You've horrified me into speechlessness. To come in on this belatedly, I gather WordPerfect sticking along in the legal profession isn't just having a lot of cranky old lawyers/judges who can't be bothered to learn new technologies. Every field has that. WordPerfect was specifically popular for so long because it was way ahead of Word in making sure you don't leave hidden metadata in a document you want to distribute to another party. With that being so important for courts and lawyers, it had a valid use case long after Word bypassed it for most purposes. Which I guess circles back to the issue of Word/PDF redaction fuckups that sparked the discussion.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2020 19:34
|
|
|
pthighs posted:I mean at least McCarthy is seen as 100% bad in any remotely mainstream media mention of that time (I have no idea how rightwing media views it, I assume they don't talk about it). My experience is that right-wing media will talk about "McCarthyism" being bad without actually talking who he was, what he did, or how he was tied to his party. In much the same way that they're happy to talk about all vaguely left-wing ideas being "Orwellian" with the implication that the author was an anti-socialist visionary. During the whole Russiagate thing it was extremely popular in a lot of crowds to paint literally any allegation of foreign influence or corruption within the campaign/administration as "the new McCarthyism" because somethingsomethingRussia. Since calling people commie traitors for disliking fascists before war was declared isn't McCarthyism at all, right?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2020 23:33
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:Who knows, maybe if Pelosi had impeached Trump harder it would have induced tens of thousands of Trump voters to split their tickets for Collin Peterson Maybe if she'd impeached him harder it would have made his own DoJ loyalists indict him! Somehow.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2020 03:03
|
|
|
Epinephrine posted:Democrats massively overperformed in 2018, largely because Democrats turned out in droves and Republicans didn't. There wasn't that turnout gap this year; turnout was just sky high everywhere. Yeah, a lot of Dems who won reddish districts in 2018 because the party had a big wave lost them in 2020 when massive Republican turnout canceled out a lot of their advantage. sexpig by night posted:they gained 15 house seats and will almost certainly retain the senate in an election they lost the executive branch, how is that anything but 'killed it' No election where you end up with a minority of the House is "killed it." Republicans absolutely did better than they did in 2018, and it's going to hurt things, but when 2016 Dems won several seats without flipping the House no one talked about what a rout of Republicans it was. Because that would have been dumb.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2020 03:52
|
|
|
Epinephrine posted:Right so to unpack the tweet that is now the latest attack: Exactly this. It's dumb bullshit that 40 years of Reaganism made it necessary to clarify that government assistance to people in need isn't just free money being handed out to lazy people, but it's dumb bullshit that pervades the electorate. Making that clarification would be important marketing speak even for someone much more progressive than Biden.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2020 02:35
|
|
|
Dumper Humper posted:Who said implement? I said he hasn't even put forward a plan, just head shaking followed by "people want understanding not handouts". He's the guy who's going to be in charge, wanting something besides "ain't it a shame" from him isn't unreasonable. Tweets have a character limit. I figure he assumed people might refer to all of his other statements and policy proposals/endorsements rather than expecting that tweet to be his sole manifesto on the pandemic.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2020 23:19
|
|
|
Dumper Humper posted:Oh like, how he's going the shut down the virus, but not the economy? Getting colder. Try harder. If you were just going to do the "But he's Biden, I'll assume he's lying" would be at lest something. Disregarding all the stuff he's actually said because you'd rather have a hot take is just sad.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2020 23:25
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:this sentence makes zero sense Surely you're being performatively ignorant here. Since if you're not then oh boy do I have stories to tell about decades of right-wing messaging that literally any government aid to the general populace is just lazy people looking for free stuff. There's a whole lot to go through, but the relevant part is how other people think that government doing things is good actually, and those people sometimes have to explain that no, it's helping people who are suffering.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2020 00:09
|
|
|
Aruan posted:Here's the bigger issue: there's a narrative in this thread and in the wider left that while Trump has been objectively worse than Obama domestically at least his foreign policy has been "better" in the sense that he's killed less people. But we now are getting even more evidence that that's not true, which is problematic when your'e using Trump's foreign policy to try to argue that Obama was a net worse, and therefore [pick your point: Obama is more evil/liberals are worse/whatever]. And not only are we getting more evidence that it's not true, there was never any reason to believe that the guy who literally ran on "more civilian casualties" was going to be better than Obama. It's not even just Obama: for all that's happened the last four years even today there were claims that Clinton of course would have been more confrontational and warlike with Iran than, you know, the guy that petulantly tore up the deal she pushed hard to set up. It's just a fantastically dumb take even in the context of Clinton being even more hawkish than Obama in general.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2020 21:42
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:OK, so only nuclear powers can provide meaningful deterrence? I'm not disagreeing with that analysis, but it also suggests that peace is spread via the proliferation of nuclear weapons. It's a very real problem that it's worked exactly that way, with a three-tier system of nuclear powers, non-nuclear powers with nuclear powers as firm allies, and non-nuclear powers without real allies. The consequences of invading (direct or proxy) one goes up sharply the closer it is to the nukes, and as a result it happens way less. That's much of why nuclear proliferation takes so much effort to stop: on an individual level, a country with enemies is much less likely to be attacked if it has a nuclear deterrent. Problem is that once that system fails the failure will almost assuredly be catastrophic. Obviously fear of nuclear war isn't the only way to spread (near-term) peace and it's certainly not the desired way to do it! But better routes getting shut down leads to more nukes. The most obvious example in terms of US diplomacy was GWB guaranteeing a nuclear North Korea by withdrawing from talks, making the axis of evil speech, and invading Iraq on accusations of chemical weapons. It cemented the idea that the only thing that would ever leave North Korea safe from attack, or even given opportunity to engage in diplomacy with any chance of being treated as an equal, was possession of a nuclear weapon. Was it actually true? Who knows, but it's hard to say that it isn't, and it seems a rational choice in terms of a sovereign state viewing a threat as existential. The second big example is Trump noping out of the Iran agreement just because he unilaterally could. Will this also make Iran really view nuclear weapons as essential to its continued existence? If it does, can we really say it's not a rational analysis for the national self-interest? Ukraine is a subtly different example, but just as important for sake of nuclear proliferation. If you want nuclear deescalation the end game is disarmament. Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons to Russia on the idea that they wouldn't be threatened by Russia. What does the result say to any other country with nukes being told to give them up for sake of a safer world?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2020 16:51
|
|
|
Glass of Milk posted:The whole thing raises the question of whether Trump's 2016 win was a function of him being a semi-unknown quantity (hell, Dave Chappelle said to give him a chance), of Clinton's campaign getting smug, Clinton herself being historically unpopular, or a combination of all of those things. That's the wrong question really. 2016 was close enough that those are only a partial list of the factors Trump needed to win. Flip any of those, and doubtless a number of additional things, and it would have been a (narrow) Clinton victory instead. I mean, take the media carrying so much water for Trump that swing voters thought he was the more moderate candidate and had all kinds of plans and proposals that he didn't. ImpAtom posted:Eh. With 2020 in rear view I'm not sure that still stands. Trump didn't just win off people disliking Hillary Clinton. He won via his own (however dubious) merits. The guy only gained voters after 4 years of bullshit and regardless of how much you can point to Biden it doesn't change the fact that a good number of those voters are people who liked Trump and wanted more. This is also huge. Trump was not a weak candidate. He resonated strongly with more people than a Republican candidate has since Reagan, and assembled a cult before his first election. Just because you and I understand that Trump is a clown unfit to lead even if you accept 21st century GOP evil in general, doesn't change the fact that the guy had real draw and a charisma that drew in a lot of (awful) people.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2020 06:40
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 10:31 |
|
|
rko posted:For the people who matter to Republicans, the point is to keep government from working. For the party’s voters, the point is to own the libs. On both fronts, the party has been doing nothing but delivering, and it’s a little absurd more people don’t recognize that. If the metric for success is preventing change, Mitch McConnell is one of the most successful legislative leaders in American history. An important part of this is that it's not symmetrical. You can't please the left (far or center) by paralyzing government and harming conservatives because that's not what motivates them. There are elements of successful right-wing practice that can be adopted and imitated, but there are others that absolutely cannot.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2020 22:18
|
|