Yes, but America is a real country so what happens in Canada isn't really relevant. We have actual precedent for our actual country that says third party runs can in fact siphon enough of the vote to be an influence. They don't usually but that's because normally the Big Two tend to pretend those third party candidates don't even exist. By attacking Gabbard, the DNC and Clinton have actually elevated her considerably and given her a lot more visibility... just like they did to Trump, proving they haven't learned a damn thing.This happened in Canada with the Conservatives and Maxime Bernier. He ended up getting 2% of the vote, uniformly distributed. As if the only people who vote for splitters are those who fall down crazy internet rabbit holes and start watching Sargon.
Maybe they literally believe that they're resisting a fascist regime, so they must plot covertly to avoid being sabotaged by Drumpf and his goons.Yeah, but that also means your opponent won't be seen as a monster.... and that's the whole point.
Harsh language can make anything seem sinister.... it's a trick lawyers and yellow journalists have known forever:
"Mr Towin Karz, perhaps you'd like to explain why you have embarked on your current decades-long crusade to stay employed? Our records show you have made a concerted and deliberate attempt, since 1994, to be in the gainful employment of not one, but, in fact, several private businesses. This behavior certainly shows a clear pattern of repeatedly engaging in self-enriching behavior, and raises a lot of questions about you. One must wonder if you are motivated by anything good, or just the MONEY?"
Literally "A coup is okay when we do it"
If you are so certain you have the best wishes of the people in mind, then why do you have to keep meeting in dark alleys to make plans about what to do with them?
Or perhaps this exchange from John Frankenheimer's Seven Days in May is more apt:
" I [sic] haven't the slightest interest in my own glorification. But I do have an abiding interest in the survival of this country."
" Then, by God, run for office. You have such a fervent, passionate, evangelical faith in this country - Why in the name of God don't you have any faith in the system of government you're so hell-bent to protect? "
The Religious Right had de facto control of jack shit. What concessions did they get from companies? Explicit lyrics warning labels? A couple of pornographers charged with obscenity? Well at least they did get abortion banned (lolno). The RR was a total rearguard action that never amounted to more than sticking a finger in a dyke and was quickly coopted by the Republican party. They did nothing to stop the inexorable drift of leftist degeneracy. And 'evangelicals' today? Gayer than average liberal from 1985.The Religious Right had the ear of the mainstream Conservative party in America for 30 years and defacto control of the culture in the 1980s it wasn't until around the mid 90s that serious pushback against them in the media began I don't know why some of you keep trying to revise history to make them out to have been completely powerless.
They were every bit as dogmatic as SJWs and just like with SJWs companies bent the knee and sanitized content to appease them.
If Trump wins 38 states, which I think is possible if the Dems put up Pocahontas, that's enough for a ratifying convention to amend the Constitution.I wish Trump would start talking about removing term limits for President, and have a bunch of state governors in on it saying they'd be up for such an amendment.
I hope if we every truly do face a fascist regime that they are more effective than they are now.Maybe they literally believe that they're resisting a fascist regime, so they must plot covertly to avoid being sabotaged by Drumpf and his goons.
The Salt would be amazing, but this would be pissing your pants in the snow: short term comfort, long term problems.Just a thought that would provide so much salt....
I wish Trump would start talking about removing term limits for President, and have a bunch of state governors in on it saying they'd be up for such an amendment.
RationalWiki itself is a hyper-left SJW sewage pit; they try to make right-leaning people and concepts look as bad as possible while promoting social justice and left wing politicians as much as possible. To be honest, the only things I really like from there are their articles debunking conspiracy theories.
And Rationalwiki got its own thread.RationalWiki itself is a hyper-left SJW sewage pit; they try to make right-leaning people and concepts look as bad as possible while promoting social justice and left wing politicians as much as possible. To be honest, the only things I really like from there are their articles debunking conspiracy theories.
I see a link to official white house docs (good), campaigns (still good) and slate (wtf?).Is There a Quid Pro Quo to Get Over?
Acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney acknowledged in a press conference last Thursday that aid to Ukraine was withheld, in part, due to Trump’s interest in “corruption related to the DNC server.” When ABC’s Jonathan Karl asked him directly if what he was describing was the quid pro quo the White House had long denied, Mulvaney said it was. This kind of thing happens “all the time with foreign policy,” Mulvaney argued. “I have news for everybody: Get over it. There’s going to be political influence in foreign policy.”
But the shift from “no quid pro quo” to “hell yeah, quid pro quo” didn’t last long. Almost immediately, Trump’s external legal team and officials from the Department of Justice distanced themselves from Mulvaney admission. Trump truckler Sean Hannity lashed out at Mulvaney on his radio show. “What is Mulvaney even talking about? I just think he’s dumb, I really do,” Hannity said. “I don’t even think he knows what he’s talking about.”
Mulvaney isn’t dumb. He is without question one of the smartest people working in the White House. The bigger problem for Hannity’s argument: Mulvaney spoke with great authority on these issues because he wasn’t merely relaying hearsay or characterizing what others claimed; as he made clear, he was describing his own involvement in withholding the aid and characterizing his own conversations with the president and other top officials.
Nonetheless, Mulvaney tried to “clarify” his admission by claiming he hadn’t said what we’d all heard, blaming the “media” for misconstruing his comments. “Let me be clear, there was absolutely no quid pro quo between Ukrainian military aid and any investigation into the 2016 election,” he said in a mop-up statement later in the day on Thursday. He tried to defend his new position with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday. You can watch the whole interview here, but the exchange below gives you a sense of how it went:
Top officials close to the president (and reportedly the president himself) clearly wish Mulvaney had not admitted what he did on Thursday, and have fought to keep “no quid pro quo” as the official line.WALLACE: Here's my first question. Why did you say that in that briefing that President Trump had ordered a quid pro quo, that investigating the Democrats, that aid to Ukraine depended on investigating the Democrats? Why did you say that?
MULVANEY: Again, that's not what I said. That's what people said I said.
But the day after Mulvaney’s presser and subsequent walkback, the Trump campaign launched a line of “Get Over It” T-shirts appearing to embrace and highlight Mulvaney’s initial argument rather than the line we saw on Sunday. A press release from the campaign said the “Get Over It” slogan “represents a call for Washington politicians to put aside political theater and false accusations and get back to work for the people of the United States.” When asked for comment on the potential discrepancy, the campaign told The Dispatch:
So while the “Get Over It” T-shirt may have been inspired by Mulvaney’s comments, the campaign contends its use of the slogan does not confirm the chief of staff’s original intent.There was no quid pro quo and President Trump has done nothing wrong. Democrats have been fixated on impeaching the President since before he took office. They should get over it and get back to work for the people of the United States.
If that wasn’t enough, Mulvaney also had to answer to Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday about another scandal of the president’s creation, and the original reason for Thursday’s press conference: the selection of Trump’s own Doral resort as the location for next year’s G-7 Summit, a move that was followed by a hasty reversal from the president on Saturday night.
Pressed by Wallace on why the Trump caved to pressure—which had mounted not just from Democrats and the media, as Trump claimed, but Republicans as well—Mulvaney said the White House was “surprised at the level of pushback” the decision generated, but also that “it's the right decision to change.” If it truly is the right decision to change venues, it follows that it was the wrong decision to try and host the summit there in the first place.
In a more candid moment, Mulvaney also acknowledged his week could have been a lot better had Trump not tried to sneak such an obvious ethics violation by the American people: “It's not lost on me that if we made the decision on Thursday, we wouldn't have had the press conference on Thursday regarding -- regarding everything else.”
It's basically Mueller all over again. They started with a relatively simple proposition: that Trump withheld aid to Ukraine to investigate his rivals, or that he colluded with Russia to win the election. But then they set about twisting the actual facts to support their narrative, and that's where things get convoluted to near impenetrable. It gets bogged down in minutia, and claims that so and so said this and that to him or her. Like even with Mulvaney denying quid pro quo repeatedly, you get byzantine thinkpieces about what he REALLY might have meant. It's the same sort mindset you get with Flat Earthers or 9/11 Truthers. There's already a conclusion, all existing facts must support that conclusion, and then everyone else looking from the outside is just perplexed. And any Glenn Greenwald-esque motherfucker who expresses skepticism of the narrative gets shouted down, shat on, and lumped in with the Enemy.Here's the dose of right leaning TDS from The Dispatch, yesterday.
I see a link to official white house docs (good), campaigns (still good) and slate (wtf?).
But apparently we're supposed to be upset with Ukraine over servers now and not Biden? Wish these guys would learn the lesson of the boy who cried wolf...
More white people, both per capita and raw numbers, were lynched between 1850 and 1930 than blacks.
I'm not saying he should push for it, that would be a disaster for the Republic, but a few well placed tweets and some cagey comments from some state governors woul have the MSM in absolute fits, and that would be delightful. He's already making jokes about "eight more years" etc.. The reeeee-ing would be hilarious if he meerly suggested it.The Salt would be amazing, but this would be pissing your pants in the snow: short term comfort, long term problems.
George Washington recognized that you problems when one person has a throttle on power for two long:
The first problem is, naturally, if you have a bad leader he will try to stay in power and shit things up.
The second problem is, less obvious: if you get a GOOD leader in place, people and systems become dependent on their good leader.
Byzantium, Hungary, to a degree the Ottomans, the Crusader Kingdoms, and someone else I'm forgetting - all cultures George Washington would have learned about as an educated elite - had an issue where the empire was in a period of decline and things were going bad, until an Energetic, Charismatic, Competent and Just leader rose to power and for his lifetime rule (and in some cases, the rule of his Son) everything got better as this guy reformed everything and turned the ship around. The problem was nothing really got fixed, the Empire came to depend on a very competent ruler, and as soon as someone less competent was on the throne, things turned to shit quicker than before and often got much, much worse than before the competent ruler took charge.
I've forgotten some of the details but I believe it was Byzantium particularly had a problem where to deal with rebellion & insurection they gave the Emperor - effectively - carte blanche to imprison and strip lands and titles from anyone in their lands regardless of station. The Emperor they gave it to used it very sparingly against only very deserving targets, to bypass the slow courts and remove nobles who were more concerned about their own station than the health of the empire. His son followed the father's example, but the next guy in line (who I think was a cousin or something) proceeded to start going full Stalin, purging anyone he thought was against him.
Instead of actually fixing the systemic problems in the empire (reforming the law to deal with rebellious nobles) they implemented a quick fix (granting wide, unchecked powers to the executive) - because the guy they gave them to would never abuse them, they never bothered putting limits, checks, or overrides in place, this came back later to bite them.
Term limits and scheduled regieme change not only limit the harm of bad rulers (Obama) but keep the nation from becoming too dependent on specific GOOD ones.
It also ensures (or, well, used to ensure) that the group in charge wouldn't unilaterally and high-handedly shit on their opponents, since they had to be mindful of the fact that their turn at being the minority party was sure to come.
"Trump's racism shows again! He said 8000 more white people than blacks were lynched from reconstruction until the civil rights act, but it was only 7300! Drumpf owned AGAIN."Could you imagine he posts that, alongside a citation?
It's hard to find the numbers on this through a casual web search since so many of the sites dedicated to the history of lynching only focus on black lynchings. I did find this article with citations but obviously can't attest to its accuracy; the Wiki page on lynchings has plenty of pictures of white lynching victims as well. Whites were definitely lynched, though you'd never know it from the MSM.Big if true; Do you have a source for that? I unironicly want to read it.