POLITICS SCHMALITICS

[chasfh]

45 minutes ago, romad1 said:

We know that THEY know that they are unpopular for all this extra-constitutional nonsense.  We know that even the most befuddled MAGA knows they are selling crap to people who have woken up to all of it finally. 

So, expect worse distractions.  But the 2026 mid-terms will be a blowout. 

If it’s a free and fair election, yes, it will be a blowout.

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, Motown Bombers said:

Cool, so democrats were the only ones motivated to vote. 

less than one in ten registered D's were motivated to vote. I find the apathy pretty appalling. Dems could have lost this if the GOP had thought to call a couple of MAGA preachers and ask for a good word.

[romad1]

51 minutes ago, chasfh said:

If it’s a free and fair election, yes, it will be a blowout.

I'll remind the RW nutters about 1989 in Eastern Europe.  It can happen very suddenly.  I would love a Romania situation but perhaps Democracy might take longer.  

Revolutions of 1989 - Wikipedia

• 10 Years (Poland): The Solidarity movement, challenging communist rule, began in 1980, leading to semi-free elections and the first non-communist government in 1989.
• 10 Months (Hungary): Hungary opened its border with Austria in May 1989, allowing East Germans to escape, and held its first free elections in October, dismantling its communist system rapidly.
• 10 Weeks (East Germany): Mass protests (the "Peaceful Revolution") grew through the autumn of 1989, culminating in the fall of the Berlin Wall on November 9th, ending the GDR's regime.
• 10 Days (Czechoslovakia): The Velvet Revolution, starting with student protests on November 17, 1989, led to the swift, non-violent resignation of the Communist government by late November. 
• 
• This is an excellent documentary about 1989

[Motown Bombers]

46 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

less than one in ten registered D's were motivated to vote. I find the apathy pretty appalling. Dems could have lost this if the GOP had thought to call a couple of MAGA preachers and ask for a good word.

Dems almost lost an election they won by 50. 

[Motown Bombers]

 

[gehringer_2]

36 minutes ago, romad1 said:

I'll remind the RW nutters about 1989 in Eastern Europe.  It can happen very suddenly.  I would love a Romania situation but perhaps Democracy might take longer.  

Revolutions of 1989 - Wikipedia

• 10 Years (Poland): The Solidarity movement, challenging communist rule, began in 1980, leading to semi-free elections and the first non-communist government in 1989.
• 10 Months (Hungary): Hungary opened its border with Austria in May 1989, allowing East Germans to escape, and held its first free elections in October, dismantling its communist system rapidly.
• 10 Weeks (East Germany): Mass protests (the "Peaceful Revolution") grew through the autumn of 1989, culminating in the fall of the Berlin Wall on November 9th, ending the GDR's regime.
• 10 Days (Czechoslovakia): The Velvet Revolution, starting with student protests on November 17, 1989, led to the swift, non-violent resignation of the Communist government by late November. 
• 
• This is an excellent documentary about 1989

of course you could also say that Czechoslovakia took from 1968 to 1989.

[gehringer_2]

27 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

Dems almost lost an election they won by 50. 

fans can hype the %, it was still only a couple of thousand votes. In modern US politics elections are won by who shows up. When nobody shows up it just doesn't tell you much, no matter what people would like to read into it. Nobody is saying it's a bad outcome, just a fairly insignificant one.

Edited Wednesday at 03:30 PM by gehringer_2

[chasfh]

6 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

of course you could also say that Czechoslovakia took from 1968 to 1989.

You could also say that if it weren't for the ten-year struggle Poland went through, it would have taken Hungary, East Germany, and Czechoslovakia a lot longer than ten months, ten weeks, or ten days.

[gehringer_2]

10 minutes ago, chasfh said:

You could also say that if it weren't for the ten-year struggle Poland went through, it would have taken Hungary, East Germany, and Czechoslovakia a lot longer than ten months, ten weeks, or ten days.

also true. And of course the events that made what happened in East Europe possible when it happened were tied to the ones happening in Russia, which is a whole 'nother history. For a brief shining moment the Russian state lost its taste for brutal repression. Seems to have now regained it in spades however.

Edited Wednesday at 03:45 PM by gehringer_2

[Motown Bombers]

 

[Mr.TaterSalad]

I've hated and loathed Bill Clinton my entire life. When I was a right wing, libertarian I hated him in my college years. Since I've become a progressive-minded person over this past 10-12 years, I've hated him even more. His moral character is in the gutter of society. He is a repugnant human being, who has done reprehensible things (only allegedly in some cases) to other people, but in particular women. 

Not only is his moral character in the gutter, but his Presidency made him look little better. Were there good things that Clinton did as President? Undoubtedly, yes there were. But the bad far out weighs the good. Doubling the extreme rate of poverty by gutting welfare, increasing the incarceration rate with the 94 Crime Bill, economic deregulation, bad trade deals, a growth in corporate power. Clinton's policies were as bad as his character. 

If Democrats are going to criticize Donald Trump because of his connections to pedophile Jeffery Epstein and Trump's treatment of women, then we have to share the same critique of Clinton or we lose all credulity. The Democratic Party's relationship with Clinton need be done. There is no reason to continue go associate with this scumbag any longer. Not with the release of his name and pictures all over the Epstein Files.

[Motown Bombers]

Right wing libertarian turned progressive confirms the horseshoe theory. 

[pfife]

Confirms your utter ignorance of a boomerang trajectory 

[oblong]

I feel that’s a strawman. The Democratic Party doesn’t exalt Clinton.  He’s not their Reagan. That person is arguing against a point that isn’t being made. 

[Motown Bombers]

Bill Clinton hasn't been relevant in 25 years. The right and far left want to make people think Democrats still care about Clinton so they can do a gotcha. 

[gehringer_2]

54 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

Bill Clinton hasn't been relevant in 25 years. The right and far left want to make people think Democrats still care about Clinton so they can do a gotcha. 

It would have been interesting to see where Hillary would have governed had she been elected and how that would have changed the 'Clinton' legacy. My impression was that she was a more committed liberal than Bill ever was but talk is cheap, we don't know what she actually would have done with the office.

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, oblong said:

I feel that’s a strawman. The Democratic Party doesn’t exalt Clinton.  He’s not their Reagan. That person is arguing against a point that isn’t being made. 

Unfortunately enough, even Reagan isn't the GOP 'Reagan' anymore.

Edited 4 hours ago by gehringer_2

[Motown Bombers]

50 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

It would have been interesting to see where Hillary would have governed had she been elected and how that would have changed the 'Clinton' legacy. My impression was that she was a more committed liberal than Bill ever was but talk is cheap, we don't know what she actually would have done with the office.

She did try to get single payer healthcare passed in the 90’s. I think she would have been like Biden. Most progressive since Johnson but attacked from both sides. 

[Mr.TaterSalad]

2 hours ago, Motown Bombers said:

Bill Clinton hasn't been relevant in 25 years. The right and far left want to make people think Democrats still care about Clinton so they can do a gotcha. 

Then why is he still out on the campaign trail every election cycle? Why does he get a prime time speaking spot at the conventions? I wouldnt want an alleged rapist and pervert like Slick Willie campaigning for me and I don't want him out there for our candidates. 

We can't claim to be the anti-Espstein party and have Clinton out there campaigning and speaking on behalf of our candidates.

[Mr.TaterSalad]

3 hours ago, oblong said:

I feel that’s a strawman. The Democratic Party doesn’t exalt Clinton.  He’s not their Reagan. That person is arguing against a point that isn’t being made. 

He gets prime time speaking slote at the national party convention. He gets brought out on the campaign trail every election to campaign for candidates.

He needs to go away and never be brought back again. When he's spoken of in the history books and taught about in schools and studied academically, his legacy of alleged sexual assaults, groping women, and close association with a child pedophile need to be studied. He's a piece of **** and Democrats can't to claim to be the anti-Epstein party if this guy is going to be out there, front and center, on the campaign trail and given prime time speaking slots at national party conventions. 

Edited 2 hours ago by Mr.TaterSalad

[Mr.TaterSalad]

Is this lowlife who Democrats and Democratic candidates really want representing them on the campaign trail?

[Motown Bombers]

46 minutes ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

Then why is he still out on the campaign trail every election cycle? Why does he get a prime time speaking spot at the conventions? I wouldnt want an alleged rapist and pervert like Slick Willie campaigning for me and I don't want him out there for our candidates. 

We can't claim to be the anti-Espstein party and have Clinton out there campaigning and speaking on behalf of our candidates.

I care more about the sitting president, but my guess is if Clinton is still alive in 2028 he won’t be very involved. 

[pfife]

??? Bernie Sanders isn't the sitting president 

[Motown Bombers]

Speaking of Bernie Sanders