Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Trump/Cheney when

[darkrider2]

I thought invoking Reagan was a way for GOP members to show how hip they are and get cred with the voterbase. I mean... IDK, are there democrat voters that look at the Reagan era with approval?

[smjjames]

Oh right, stem cell research, mainly because of the use of embryos and all that. I misinterpreted what maniac said.

"I misspoke about their records

The thing she misspoke about was which disease Nancy Reagan cared about thirty years ago.  You seem to be construing this as she thought the question was about Alzheimers or she thought AIDs and Alzheimers are the same disease.

The (possible, if not likely) conflation of AIDS and Alzheimers is not the important part though; the above bolded bit is. Whether or not it was a mistake or an unrelated bit tacked on to the first half of her tweet, the fact remains that it should be really hard to connect the Reagans to AIDS in a positive manner. I wonder if she has a fact-checker to fire?

Her brain maybe? (lol) Might be an example of trying too hard on something....

Honestly, considering the focus on Trump re: fascism, the likely ineffectualism of him as president, and the precedent regarding puppetry from perceived second-rate positions (from Dick Cheney to Stalin)...

If Trump gets the nom, keep an eye on who he picks as running mate. If Trump gets elected, keep an even closer eye on whoever is his vice president. Between Trump and Trumps VP, the more likely person to manage a fascist takeover and succeed without being suspected would be the VP.

Possible other mechanics would be a Sec. of State.

You Canadians are funny!

On a serious note, while Trump doesn't seem like the type who could be easily manipulated, unlike George W. Bush, he might get misled because he doesn't know the inner workings of government. Then again, there are other people who were in second rate positions overshadowed by the main guy such as LBJ who didn't go all fascist.

Also, Cheney actually had a good deal of power as VP.

edit: I don't see a Seceretary of State being a possible mechanic since they don't typically work the legislative stuff. Could be a possible stepping stone to the presidency, there have been plenty of presidents who were seceretary of state at some point.

[mainiac]

the more likely person to manage a fascist takeover

Before the fascists took power, the clearly stated the lands they planned to wage war of aggression to take and the peoples they intended to displace or worse.  They didn't keep mum about that stuff before they were in power and then pull a surprise.  It's true that the German establishment did delude itself to a remarkable extent.  But you could look at the speeches of Mussolini or the writings of Hitler and know what's what.  To my knowledge the only military action that Trump has endorsed is bombing ISIS.  I'm unaware of any possible veep for Trump who has endorsed such a program of conquest.

Can we just call him a liar, a fool, a thug, a cheat and a fraud?

I thought invoking Reagan was a way for GOP members to show how hip they are and get cred with the voterbase. I mean... IDK, are there democrat voters that look at the Reagan era with approval?

Yes.  Not many of them but they are swing votes in the general election.

[Descan]

the more likely person to manage a fascist takeover

Before the fascists took power, the clearly stated the lands they planned to wage war of aggression to take and the peoples they intended to displace or worse.  They didn't keep mum about that stuff before they were in power and then pull a surprise.  It's true that the German establishment did delude itself to a remarkable extent.  But you could look at the speeches of Mussolini or the writings of Hitler and know what's what.  To my knowledge the only military action that Trump has endorsed is bombing ISIS.  I'm unaware of any possible veep for Trump who has endorsed such a program of conquest.

Can we just call him a liar, a fool, a thug, a cheat and a fraud?

[insert quote about wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross, yada yada]

If someone were to want to actually succeed in a fascist takeover of america, he's not going to pull out a history book and follow Hitlers play style, since people will look at that and go "Oh. Yeah. That didn't work so well last time."

SMJ: That's my point. I don't know about down there, but for me, and most people up here if I can talk for them, when we think of VP in the south, we think "second rate" But Cheney was anything but second rate.

It's not a very clearly defined position, last I heard. And that makes it all the more dangerous, since it can become whatever the VP wants it to become.

[RedKing]

Sanders's senate record does not inspire confidence in his ability to rally his own side, let alone the Republicans.

And Clinton's Senate record does?

While a member of the U.S. Senate, Clinton sponsored 713 pieces of legislation. Of these, three became law:
№    Senate Bill    Congress    Year    Title    Senate Vote
Yea/Nay    House Vote
Yea/Nay    Purpose    Ref.
1    S. 1241    108th    2004    Kate Mullany National Historic Site Act    Unanimous    Acclamation    Establishes the Kate Mullany National Historic Site in Troy, New York. Authorizes appropriations.

2    S. 3613    109th    2006    A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at
2951 New York Highway 43 in Averill Park, New York, as the
"Major George Quamo Post Office Building".    Unanimous    Acclamation    Names post office after Major George Quamo, U.S. Army

3    S. 3145    110th    2008    A bill to designate a portion of United States Route 20A,
located in Orchard Park, New York, as the
"Timothy J. Russert Highway"    Unanimous    Acclamation    Named U.S. Route Highway after late journalist, Tim Russert

So as long as the future of America lies in being able to rename shit in New York, we'll be in good hands. 

[Rolan7]

So you admit she has *executive* experience? 
I don't care to do a proper comparison with Sander's record, but he wasn't first lady.  Looks like he was never a governor.

[Cthulhu]

Weird, the source I read had Sanders with almost hte same thing.  Three laws:  two renamings, one veterans benefits bill.

[RedKing]

So you admit she has *executive* experience? 
I don't care to do a proper comparison with Sander's record, but he wasn't first lady.  Looks like he was never a governor.

Respectfully, what the fuck does that have to do with anything? Last I checked, "First Lady" isn't an elected position, nor a position with any actual executive power. Yes, she has some executive experience as Sec. of State. I think the jury is still out on her report card from that tenure (Henry "Bomb The Fuck Out Of SE Asia" Kissinger's approval not being the final word).

Sanders and Clinton have each gotten three of their Senate bills passed, which is a pretty fucking awful success rate, although a statistical analysis I found during the 109th and 110th Congresses indicated that the ten MOST successful Senators in getting their legislation passed had success rates only ranging from 9.4% down to 2.3% for bills, and around 60% for resolutions (because resolutions are typically non-binding bullshit like declaring "National Lobster Day".)


A more important measure (though it would take more work to track) would be to see the amendments introduced by each, and their success rates with those.

[Cthulhu]

I thinkw hat he meant is Clinton has been doing ohter things and hasn't been serving in some Congressional capacity since 1991.

[Rolan7]

@Redking
She was married to the leader of the free world.  She was even activist in that role of first lady, if unsuccessful.  I think that counts as useful experience, which Senator Sanders doesn't have.
Is it as relevant as her experience as governor?  Debatable, but she has *both* and he has neither.

[smjjames]

@Redking
She was married to the leader of the free world.  She was even activist in that role of first lady, if unsuccessful.  I think that counts as useful experience, which Senator Sanders doesn't have.
Is it as relevant as her experience as governor?  Debatable, but she has *both* and he has neither.

You mean senator, Sanders is the one who was governor of Vermont at one point.

Unless you meant while Bill was governor?

[Rolan7]

Shit, he was a governor too?  My bad.  I tried to search his history and failed, I guess.  Clinton was Governor of New York, of course.

Err, are you *sure*?  Sanders was senator from Vermont, but he never succeeded in his runs for Governor that I can tell.

[RedKing]

@Redking
She was married to the leader of the free world.  She was even activist in that role of first lady, if unsuccessful.  I think that counts as useful experience, which Senator Sanders doesn't have.
Is it as relevant as her experience as governor?  Debatable, but she has *both* and he has neither.

When the hell was she ever governor of anywhere? She was MARRIED to a governor. Which is not the same as being governor. I really shouldn't have to explain that.
Jesus Christ, people, I've said it before -- Hillary is not Bill in a pantsuit. They are two separate people, and frankly she doesn't have the political moxie that Bill did/does.


EDIT: Guys....SERIOUSLY. You're embarassing yourselves. NEITHER of them has ever been governor of a state. EVER.

Hillary was Senator for New York, not governor.
Bernie was a mayor, then US representative for Vermont, and then Senator for Vermont.

>_<

[Cthulhu]

I'm like 90% sure neither of htem were ever governors.