Problem is, most of the people capable of violence (i.e. People with guns) voted for Trump haha

It's also a bit amusing that one of the rednecks' key arguments for gun rights was in case the government overstepped its reach (really just Obama though). Anti-gun people rolled their eyes at that argument.

Its already gerrymandered by red states getting a larger proportion of electoral votes than their population indicates. But this will get worse as those populations decline, and the ppl leaving will tend to be upwardly mobile and thus smarter and thus more progressive.

The real issue will be disenfranchisement and outward voter fraud. That has already been used to steal 2 elections. But given the large amount of control the republicans have, those programs will become much stronger and more effective.

I mean. No justice no peace isn't a cute marching slogan. At some point peace simply cannot coexist with injustice.

I think, by equating a lack of "decency" or "couth" to what Le Grande Orange is doing as president-elect of the United States of America, you continue to miss the point through continued false equivalencies. And that's really the problem: what he's doing is not mere politics, is not a mere lack of class, is not a mere lack of decorum. It attacks the fundamental underpinnings of the government, of the notion that the president must act only in the interest of the country, can act only in the interest of the country, and should not be in a position where his own immediate personal financial interests compete with the interests of the country that he is governing. And if he gets away with any of it, then that opens the door for future presidents (dems, reubs, socialists, lefts, rights, middles, etc.) to get away with it, and get away with it more so, because it's the proverbial slippery slope. And it should never be enough to say that we simply should "trust him", because (a) that should never be the case with anyone, but (b) this guy has not given anyone any reason to trust him.

Mattis is pretty sweet, very fortunate to have him

this encapsulates so much.

2 of those districts look like cock and balls.

I think what's somewhat likely to happen is the emerging of an alt-left that speaks to all poor people and wins over a decent amount of the dumb poors who always vote repub against their own self interest. Bernie was making some ground on this. Not gonna win this by staying in the middle.

But again. standing in the way of that is the unbelievably incompetent and bad-at-the-game, privileged dems who for some reason dont want actual progress.

MURICA

I think you continue to miss the point that he was democratically elected. The things you are talking about ARE the fundamental underpinnings of government, in the sense that it was ALWAYS just a cheap facade being held together by unspoked subservience to tradition and decency. The things he is violating are those norms. The things he is DEFINITELY NOT violating are the actual democractic principles and codified laws.

The reason he is successful at this is because there is far less respect for those norms. And the reason there is far less respect for those norms is because of the successful campaign of progressivism. There is no way that a Trump could have been elected 50 years ago, acting the way he has, regardless of his positions. Its the cost to be paid. Its well worth that cost. Sure we ran pretty bad here, but it is what it is. There isnt really any other way to have made the amazing progress at the breakneck speed its been made.

I'm not making any false equivalencies, and yet again I'll point out that if you are using the phrase "false equivalency" you have almost certainly already lost. Its mindless. All equivalencies are false. There are identities, and false equivalencies. There are no "true equivalencies." Those are just the ones you like.

Yes, letting him get away with it is surely a bad idea. That doesnt seem particulary germane to the discussion though.

On a different note, am I understanding this "Trump golden shower" scandal correctly? Earlier this year, the GOP paid some former British MI-6 guy to dig up a bunch of dirt on Trump. When Trump won the primary, Clinton paid the same guy for the same info. This is the info he dug up, and it was so obviously stupid and unsupported that neither the GOP nor Clinton were willing to use it. So then he shopped it around for like 6 months to news outlets, and even then was not able to find a single network scummy enough to present this information because it was so baseless and dumb. But then Trump won, people started getting nervous, standards lowered, Buzzfeed bought it, and CNN went with the "I mean we arent saying, but we arent NOT saying, and we cant put this stuff in our article....but heres a link to it!" approach?

Seems like a worst of both worlds approach. You completely debase yourself and destroy any remaining shred of credibility, you become the boy who cried wolf for the inevitable future Trump scandals....and you did it all at a time when it was too late to actually matter. Solid work.

CNN didn't link to it, but yes they did mention that Buzzfeed published the whole memo. The CNN article was about Trump being presented with the allegations in addition to a report about the Russian hackings.

Don't think CNN did anything particularly egregious.

cnn reported it bc usa intelligence briefed both trump and obama on it. their thought process was that if intelligence felt that it was important enough to discuss with the president then it should be reported.

As with many things Trump, the sensational is overshadowing the terrifying. Whores pissing on him is funny, sure, but the real story is the potential that his campaign was in regular contact with the Russian government on a regular basis during the campaign. If true that is one of the biggest scandals in American political history. There are so many warning signs on Russia...it is literally the only topic Trump has been consistent on, and there is no reasonable explanation for it other than corruption.

Without questioning why intelligence felt that it was important enough to discuss with him, especially since literally nothing new had happened or come to light? So they acted basically as the PR arm of the intelligence agencies?

vhawk just asking questions guys, as usual

im sure if we search the archives we will find him enraged about the comey letter

Imagine if Hillary had received such unfair press treatment! The Trump landslide would have been even biglier!

Riverman,

Just a quick question for you. When you posted those 3 instances of gerrymandering, did you mean to include three separate states where Democrats controlled redistricting in 2010, or did you just not know?

Of course, that's not to say that I agree with gerrymandered districts. If I had my way, in redistricting any incumbent would remain in the same district with at least 50% of their previous voters, and everything beyond that would be randomly generated by a computer algorithm.

Democrats did not draw North Carolina's districts.

You're right, I misread/mistimed my info. Saw that Dems controlled NC in 2010 and forgot that they wouldn't do the census stuff until 2011. My point stands on IL and MD though, those were definitely written by Dems.

https://twitter.com/SopanDeb/status/819733886263500800

Chaffetz is such an incredible piece of ****