GooberTheHat wrote:

mistercrayon wrote:

Yossarian wrote:

What does?

"..Democrats have introduced a resolution to strip a pro-Trump Republican lawmaker of her committee assignments over her past posts on social media.”

I can see the desire to rejecting her but it just feels like it’s a dangerous tool to introduce into play when it can be used more nefariously and I think after the whole Donald trump Deplorables debacle it seems like a dumb move to slap in the face anyone who voted for her.

She thinks Jews started forest fires with a space laser, and that school shooting survivors are crisis actors. How can she have a position on any committee that might be responsible for writing legislation?

I get where Crayon is coming from but when you're dealing with this type of comments, it seems irresponsible to allow them anywhere near any type of power, voted in or not.

So yeah, president of the US in 2028 if it hasn't imploded before then.

RedDave2 wrote:

Yossarian wrote:

RedDave2 wrote:

Future president Dino. She speaks to the loons, and they are way more committed voters.

Based on the last election, they are not.

I wasn't being completely serious but I wouldn't be too surprised at this poont. I can certainly see a few more crazies getting in and who knows, if it got a more solid platform either through taking over the gop or as part of some other party, it could become more and more viable.

A lot of people rallied behind biden because of trumps past 4 years. In a normal election that number would be done. Trumps numbers this election were huge and any year that would have carried. Sadly I only see qanon stuff spreading for the next few years. It's heavily tied to religious dogma and there is a huge under current of religious extremism in the US. It just needs someone to tap it.

You could be right. USA is a strange place.

I_R wrote:

GooberTheHat wrote:

I think the Republicans are starting to show themselves up enough that any traditional, moderate Republican is going to find it hard to vote for them. I would expect more loons to win primaries but then suffer as a result in the actual elections, other than in 100% guaranteed areas.

That's yet another of their problems though, loads of places are guaranteed and the primary is the election. It's probably not easy for fringe groups to win these, but it's obviously possible.

But in the non red states and counties the loon is going to suppress Republican turn-out, meaning it is more likely that a democrat will win. That's my optimistic take anyway.

Even if I’m being precisely appeasing (let’s say for arguments sake it’s being purely contrarian - but I can assure you it’s not intentionally so) what is the problem with me even floating the idea?

Based on the following pieces of evidence I feel like there’s a good chance that such an act is dangerous:

1) it feels like it’s a repetition of managing of this kind of person in the way that Hilary Clinton handled Donald trump and his supporters. - this is a group that can be silenced because they’re awful and don’t worry about them. It ended in disaster once.

2) the republicans have abused the rules before to get whatever they want and even reversing the concepts of democracy as they see fit (see Supreme Court noms). If a democratically elected person can easily be removed from committees (which if they are the same as here are about having both parties represented legislation making) then it’s pretty plain to me that the ethically dubious republicans can easily pull the same trick and probably more efficiently and effectively.

Of course it might be the right thing to do but that doesn’t stop it from being risky imo and maybe a lack of imagination about how to really deal with this symptom of a deeper problem.

We’re all smart here - we can digest these points and not be bothered by differing viewpoints and perspectives on this sort of thing. Surely it’s more fun if there is an official appeasement office anyway.

mistercrayon wrote:

let’s say for arguments sake it’s being purely contrarian

Yeah well I wasn't being 100% serious but let's hope this quote is what it is, right? the good ol' devil's advocate, see it from their side sort of thing.

Anyway the thing is: there's a big difference between

a) ignoring a growing movement of disenfranchised voters / people who will glom on to any loony theory if it gives them an ounce of illusion of control over their fucked up lives, which have been ignored by dems who claim to speak for them for decades; and 

b) disenfranchising a beast of that group's making with actual power and agency like a senator or congressperson.

It's like - the way to deal with growing support for nazis party is not to mock those supporters; call them deplorables, ignore their plight, and not change anything that could actually make their lives better - this is one of your points and I agree with it wholeheartedly and the democrats own their share of the blame for doing those things, the fucking banker "not as bad as that lot so vote for us" centrist fuckers.

But the way to deal with the people who run the nazi party is to stop them, fucking straight away from getting any power or any more support as quickly as possible, disenfranchise them in any constitutional and legal way possible whilst enacting the police that remove their support. To suggest this is easy is ludicrous as Yoss implies but it is necessary to try.

Remember: there's a difference between people desperately looking for easy solutions for their terrible problems; and the people who take advantage of them for power. Help the former, fuck the latter

I do think the parallels with the nazi party and that racist guy that Dante mentioned are true. And there should be active methods to stamp that. And maybe all paths are paved with danger. I hope that they’ve chosen the best way of dealing with her and her sort.

How it gets spun 

https://www.mediamatters.org/tucker-carlson/tucker-carlson-defends-rep-marjorie-taylor-greene-criticism-over-her-beliefs

And bang there's noxy with the demonstration of why what I'm saying is important. Sure, deal with the long term problem of angry poor voters looking for people to blame; but don't tolerate what they enable in the meantime

Speaking of Tucker Carlson.

https://www.vox.com/videos/2019/4/3/18294392/tucker-carlson-pretends-hate-elites-populism-false-consciousness

hunk wrote:

Speaking of Tucker Carlson. https://www.vox.com/videos/2019/4/3/18294392/tucker-carlson-pretends-hate-elites-populism-false-consciousness

That fucker has eyes on being the next Trump. A really awful prick.

Chance of trump taking the stand at his impeachment trial. Popcorn time indeed. Though as before, I predict a shitshow or no show.

The man took it down, man.

So glad that's Biden off to a good star - oh.

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2021/02/the-horrible-politics-of-1400-checks

Why is it that these ridiculous Centrist politicians constantly shoot themselves in the foot in ridiculous misbegotten attempts to "triangulate" their "appeal" to "every voter"

Just fuckin do what you said you'd do and send them $2 grand Jesus wept

So this looks like shitty campaigning ads being deliberately misleading to get the votes. Then the typical fuck you.

Talk about burning your goodwill early. What a stupid move. They won Georgia based in part on this.

The Dems needed everyone on board, and if Joe Manchin or Kyrsten Sinema had voted against it wouldn't have passed.

https://www.newsweek.com/what-joe-manchin-kyrsten-sinema-mark-kelly-have-said-about-bidens-stimulus-plan-1566548