Print

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

[Amperzand]

I support two out of three of those choices, and if the third solely affected DC during the presidential inauguration, I'd be okay with it.

[smjjames]

Um, the quote says the poll was done two years ago. Not sure if there was one done this year...

[Sergarr]

That's still way too high. His approval rating should be in the 0-5% range (i.e. only complete crazies). The fact that almost half the country thinks that he'd be an acceptable President is horrifying.

Dubya only managed 19% at his lowest, so I don't think you're likely to ever see that unless Donald Trump is literally recorded raping a child. There's also the matter of the previously mentioned Lizardman's Constant, where a good twentieth or tenth of every poll is composed of people who aren't paying attention or just want to troll statisticians. Then there's probably about another 10% of America composed of cultists, severely delusional people, and the kind of folks who are alright with the Republicans but would really rather have the Constitution Party and drive the lukewarm limp-wrists out.

I'd say that anything below 20% is in reasonable danger of impeachment, and below 10% in practical danger. Americans hardly have difficulty hating bad presidents, hell, we even hate good presidents.

Still, you have to understand that a lot of people just want everything to work out, and the election having been finished are trying to give Trump a chance. Even people like Obama, Clinton, and Dave Chappelle have gotten on national television and basically said "don't dismiss the guy before he even takes office". I can almost agree, if only because treating Trump seriously is what will be his downfall. He's all hype. Showing him the attitude of "here you are, good luck" takes that away, and ensures that when he fails to do real work that there won't be anybody else to blame. And hell, even I said there was 5% or so that Trump really has some secret sauce.

I already gave Trump a chance, and he promptly blew it by promising to defund NASA's Near-Earth department (or whatever it is called), starting a fucking major international incident before he even got to office, and now promising to outright destroy USA economy with his insane tariff plan.

This policy of appeasement is probably why we got Trump in the first place - Comey's shitshow of an investigation was one of the major factors in him getting elected, and he's a staunch Republican who's been appointed by Obama.

That was a mistake. It should not be repeated again. We should not negotiate with terrorists.

That would still leave the Tea Party-type Republican Party in charge, and they, while a little bit less suddenly apocalyptic, are still incredibly, unbelievably bad for USA and the world.

I'm just going to assume I'm not being Poe'd here.

Don't get me wrong, they're bad hombres, but they're not the end of the world. Holding power is an opportunity, but it's also dangerous. Much like Trump, it's been a while since Republican control truly existed in the country. People aren't sure about them at all, and that means that if they don't stay popular it's going to cost them even more than Dubya did. That's right alongside the existence of people like me, who will still be "voting against Bush for the rest of our lives".

Remember: The last strong Republican administration was Reagan, and he spent the last few years dysfunctional due to Alzheimer's. We all remember Dubya's shit, who won the last EC victory and lucked out against Kerry. Before that was Bush Sr., and he only lasted a single term against Original Recipe Clinton. The true long term prospects of the GOP have been deeply unstable for a long time, and the first chance they're being given in these past thirty years is predicated upon the success of Donald Trump. I almost feel sorry for them. It was easy to gain popular discontent when Obama was at the helm, but that factor is over now. This might actually end up shattering the GOP even worse than losing again would have. Not only that, but I think people have forgotten something these past eight years. Popular discontent is the left's game. Dubya got such bad numbers due to the constant, unyielding force of the antiwar movement. The Tea Party are amateurs by comparison.

It doesn't matter whenever people are sure about Republicans or not. They know that, in a normal popularity contest, they'll lose - hell they've already lost that one, judging by this election - and that's why they've long since chosen to not play that game. Did you forget about gerrymandering and voter suppression? They can rig the game so they'll continue to win elections forever - and they'll probably do so, now that they're fully in power.

They're very close to being able to pass Constitutional Amendments, they need to "convince" just one Democrat state to do so IIRC. And with that, they can fucking do whatever they want.

They'll almost certainly try to invade Iran,

Trump will probably scrap our embryonic diplomatic contact and end up gunning down some Iranian fishermen, but the chances of an invasion are practically nil. Trump is isolationist, even though that's impossible in the real world. He's far more the "bomb and forget" type than someone who would actually stage an invasion.

Meanwhile Congress wanted to start a fucking shooting war over a pair of captured USA boats, because "humiliation". They even tried to sabotage the nuclear deal negotiations by sending a letter to Iran. And I was talking about the potential "Trump-less" Republicans, in case he gets impeached for whatever reason.

It's barely regulated as is, but also what they say they'll do and what they actually do are still separate, even amongst unprofessionals. Even more, in fact. Regulatory inertia is a powerful force, albeit not as powerful as jurisprudence.

I'm fairly sure that Republicans want to repeal child labor laws, or at least relax them, because "modern children are too coddled by the nanny state and should have a taste for manual labor".

This I don't believe. Coal is doomed even with government intervention, and there's no way Trump will get even a Republican Congress to overturn the Clean Air Act. That shit's nearly as third-rail as social security by now.

I'm not talking about coal, I'm talking about industrial factories and cars. Those are two major pollution sources, and they're the reasons why China city's air is so bad. And if USA stops regulating those, then American cities will start looking like Chinese ones.

I don't think they have all that much interest in reintroducing anything beyond this "First Amendment Defense Act" which will almost certainly be found unconstitutional (remember, same-sex marriage was legalized without Scalia's concurrence). I don't know what "anti-POC" law you'd be be referring to, though.

The real problem for LGBT rights is that this will stall protected class status, which is even now still the main hole due to not guaranteeing in every state things like nondiscrimination for housing, hospital visitation, adoption, employment, and other such rights.

"Unconstitutionality" is not a problem for a party that will soon have control over the Supreme Court. With power of Constitutional Amendment practically in their hands, what they can do is increase the Supreme Court's size a la what Roosevelt was planning to do, and pack the new slots with Republican-Bots that will act as stampers for the desires of Republicans - and, as I've pointed it earlier, they want to abolish Constitution and make USA into a theocratic state.

And by "anti-PoC laws", I meant Jim Crow laws and all the laws that targeted minorities and prevented them from voting. We've already saw the plans, they want to amend the National Voter something-thingie, we know that they want to do this, we already saw them trying to do so with all the power they've had, it's not a big extrapolation to assume that they'll continue to do it even stronger once they'll have real control.

Since climate science is My Issue and all, I'll just say "big fucking change". Even the Dems aren't willing to go hard on the need for green. Obama went up there every state of the union address flopping his neck about "jobs, jobs, growth, industry" like that means a goddamn thing, and I know he knows better since he said so. Half of Americans still don't accept the truth. A hard lesson is required, and Trump will probably provide it for us.

A "hard lesson" will kill or displace a significant portion of people on Earth, and Republicans will blame it on the wrath of God and will call for people to vote for them even harder so that they could repent.

And, given what this election showed us, it will fucking work and people will vote for Republicans like good God-fearing citizens they are, if no serious steps are taken to remove them from power and prevent them from spreading influence over the people in USA.

Still suspect you're fucking with me, here.

I'm not fucking with you. It's just that I don't want to see the world go to ruin because of an orange monkey in a suit leading a crowd of science-hating ignorants to destroy literally everything I care about. And if preventing that requires some less-than-completely-legal things (since colour revolutions are nearly always technically illegal), so fucking what?

Survival and spread of the liberal justice and Western civilization is more important than keeping adherence to the old, ancient and horribly backwards and outdated laws - that's why the West has been supporting all these colour revolutions, after all!

[Amperzand]

This year's poll is probably 50% "Harambe for God-Emperor" and 50% "ALL BURN!" :V

[Wolfhunter107]

Sergarr, I don't think that this game is as nearly as zero-sum as you think it is. Also, I really don't think that the Taiwan thing qualifies as a major international incident-it might if the Chinese made a huge stink, but as-is they seem to be giving him the benefit of the doubt.

[smjjames]

Technically and in my opinion, his chance starts January 20th (or maybe 21st when he starts his first full workday as President), but yeah, he isn't off to a great start.

[Egan_BW]

This year's poll is probably 50% "Harambe for God-Emperor" and 50% "ALL BURN!" :V

votes out 2020

[smjjames]

Sergarr, I don't think that this game is as nearly as zero-sum as you think it is. Also, I really don't think that the Taiwan thing qualifies as a major international incident-it might if the Chinese made a huge stink, but as-is they seem to be giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Yeah, they've lodged a complaint, but they, like everybody else, are waiting to see what Trump actually does. Though who he chooses as Secretary of State may be a clue as to what he intends to do.

[Strife26]

What specifically are you upset about with the Near Earth stuff? NASA has been trying to shift towards public-private partnerships really hard in that sector for a long time. They'd rather be spending money on things other than the ISS and commercial launch items and the looming threat of regulation that comes with them (NASA has a very, very, very strong institutional policy to flee kicking and screaming from anything that looks like regulation, both on them, and on anything that hints at NASA expertise being used to regulate others).

[Wolfhunter107]

Sergarr, I don't think that this game is as nearly as zero-sum as you think it is. Also, I really don't think that the Taiwan thing qualifies as a major international incident-it might if the Chinese made a huge stink, but as-is they seem to be giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Yeah, they've lodged a complaint, but they, like everybody else, are waiting to see what Trump actually does. Though who he chooses as Secretary of State may be a clue as to what he intends to do.

They actually blamed Taiwan for the call, which to me is another suggestion that Trumps getting a grace period. How long this will actually last is another question completely, and probably depends on whether or not he keeps doing stuff like this.

Looking at his secretary of state pick is good, though I'd also suggest looking at who's advising him as well. Trump is easily influenced outside of his area of expertise(or what he thinks is it) and this is definitely on that list. Incidentally, this might actually be an example of that--he recently talked with one of the leading voices of a group that wants closer ties with Taiwan, and there's a decent chance that that's where the idea for the call came from.



EDIT: The Army Corps of Engineers has apparently just suspended the Dakota Access Pipeline. I suspect this might be short-lived thanks to Trump, but it's still good news.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I already gave Trump a chance, and he promptly blew it by promising to defund NASA's Near-Earth department (or whatever it is called),

I don't think it's a specific department or anything, it's just one of their jobs that he intends to assign to NOAA instead.

starting a fucking major international incident before he even got to office,

As I've said: eh. I've been to Taiwan, and they're not going to bow before Beijing anytime this century, especially not with the largest US fleet sitting pretty a couple hundred miles away off the coast of South Korea. They even informally call themselves "Free China". And the PRC isn't really going to push it, either. Rhetoric is rhetoric. The PRC wants to maintain the idea that they're China, and they'll do that just fine even if the US plays more fast and loose with that definition. The Chinese aren't any more scary warmonger barbarians waiting for a singular excuse to destroy Liberty than the Soviet Union was. They're practical, and perhaps more importantly have committed hard to the plan of using their soft power to beguile Taiwan into accepting the One China, Two Systems plan.

and now promising to outright destroy USA economy with his insane tariff plan.

He also promised to completely scrap Obamacare and imprison Hillary Clinton. You can't trust the things Trump says will even be the things he says tomorrow, much less trust them to be literal and actionable like with a normal politician.

This policy of appeasement is probably why we got Trump in the first place - Comey's shitshow of an investigation was one of the major factors in him getting elected, and he's a staunch Republican who's been appointed by Obama.

No, we got Trump because of a perfect storm of bad circumstances, Clinton being a reptilian, and Trump being the hype man. This got him an election that's now looking to be the narrowest in American history. I'm not appeasing him. I'm demanding he show us what he's got, that "so amazing" Presidency he's got in store. To do it for real. For someone who's all hype, that is the worst thing. Trump wants to stay with the reputation he has because it means people won't look for substance.

It doesn't matter whenever people are sure about Republicans or not. They know that, in a normal popularity contest, they'll lose - hell they've already lost that one, judging by this election - and that's why they've long since chosen to not play that game.

That's really not true. The party not in power tends to only gain confidence, and the one in tends to only lose it. The Republicans are in the worst possible position: they have power and a very small confidence barrier. They're always going to be beholden to that.

Did you forget about gerrymandering and voter suppression? They can rig the game so they'll continue to win elections forever - and they'll probably do so, now that they're fully in power.

No they can't. For one, you can only gerrymander House elections on the federal level. Senate and Presidential elections will be eternally immune because they do not rely upon mutable districts. As for voter suppression, apathy is far worse, and I'm confident the GOP will take care of that little issue for us. Take a look at the 2008 election and remember that was after the Republicans had full control, during 9/11. If they weren't going to seize some manner of permanent electoral power then, they just can't do it.

They're very close to being able to pass Constitutional Amendments, they need to "convince" just one Democrat state to do so IIRC. And with that, they can fucking do whatever they want.

No, they really aren't. Passing an Amendment requires the confidence of goddamn near everybody to succeed. It's almost certainly the single easiest political element in America to defeat, and with good cause. Not that I want to validate the "civil religion" idea, but Americans are serious about this shit if nothing else. It's even stricter due to everybody being taught about Prohibition and how well that turned out.

Something less than universally agreed upon will NEVER pass this process. Hell, the Dems could deny with the Senate alone, because that requires a two-thirds vote and the GOP doesn't have that even with perfect party discipline. The number of Republican rogues you'd see in the House could also deny two-thirds. And once you've accomplished that, there is then the arduous task of uniting all the lunatics who got themselves elected to state governments. Good fucking luck.

Meanwhile Congress wanted to start a fucking shooting war over a pair of captured USA boats, because "humiliation". They even tried to sabotage the nuclear deal negotiations by sending a letter to Iran. And I was talking about the potential "Trump-less" Republicans, in case he gets impeached for whatever reason.

Congress talks shit about diplomacy and wars specifically because they don't have to back it up with anything. It's all talk, just a way of thumbing the President.

"Unconstitutionality" is not a problem for a party that will soon have control over the Supreme Court. With power of Constitutional Amendment practically in their hands, what they can do is increase the Supreme Court's size a la what Roosevelt was planning to do, and pack the new slots with Republican-Bots that will act as stampers for the desires of Republicans - and, as I've pointed it earlier, they want to abolish Constitution and make USA into a theocratic state.

Ok, now you're just getting out of reality. First off: The Supreme Court, even if it gets a Trump nominee instead of Garland, will still be about the same as it has been under Obama, and that's weirdly moderate. Scalia was one of the more extreme conservatives, only outdone by Thomas. This is the same court that got a majority for Obamacare and same-sex marriage even if they have to shut out Trump's guy sitting in Scalia's seat. Damn near every Justice on the court is going to stay while Trump is in office unless the icy hand of death comes for them. Not only that, but Supreme Court nominees are still subject to Senate review in a Senate where the Dems still have minority influence, and if that wasn't enough SCOTUS nominees are infamously disloyal to the Presidents that nominate them. Trump's Justice is more likely to use him to get on the court than the other way around.

And by "anti-PoC laws", I meant Jim Crow laws and all the laws that targeted minorities and prevented them from voting.

The only laws the Republicans are trying to enforce are voter ID laws, which are bad but also don't survive judicial review very well. This isn't the 60's, nobody is proposing anything near a Jim Crow law.

We've already saw the plans, they want to amend the National Voter something-thingie, we know that they want to do this, we already saw them trying to do so with all the power they've had, it's not a big extrapolation to assume that they'll continue to do it even stronger once they'll have real control.

[? ? ? Intensifies]

A "hard lesson" will kill or displace a significant portion of people on Earth, and Republicans will blame it on the wrath of God and will call for people to vote for them even harder so that they could repent.

Work with what you've got. It's easier for people to believe that someone like Obama will fix the climate for them, with Trump you can blow all the effects wide open and change minds. We're looking at a bad record, but it can still be turned around if we stop fucking up. No surrender.

And, given what this election showed us, it will fucking work and people will vote for Republicans like good God-fearing citizens they are, if no serious steps are taken to remove them from power and prevent them from spreading influence over the people in USA.

Maybe you should actually go and look at the number of people who voted for Trump, versus Clinton, versus all voters. People didn't come out for him, he even got less votes than Mittens.

I'm not fucking with you. It's just that I don't want to see the world go to ruin because of an orange monkey in a suit leading a crowd of science-hating ignorants to destroy literally everything I care about. And if preventing that requires some less-than-completely-legal things (since colour revolutions are nearly always technically illegal), so fucking what?

Because there's an easy legal process to impeach Trump early instead? He'll even be committing crimes to justify it Day One because he refuses to cut ties with his businesses. It just requires him being so hated that the Republicans in Congress are like "oh shit, I'm going to lose my job next election unless I go on record trying to impeach him".

Survival and spread of the liberal justice and Western civilization is more important than keeping adherence to the old, ancient and horribly backwards and outdated laws - that's why the West has been supporting all these colour revolutions, after all!

The West supported those revolutions because it benefited our power bloc, and for no other reason. Nobody in politics actually believes in this kind of rhetoric, which is why I've been so skeptical of your seriousness.

EDIT: The Army Corps of Engineers has apparently just suspended the Dakota Access Pipeline. I suspect this might be short-lived thanks to Trump, but it's still good news.

Well goddamn. I was wondering if they'd break.

[Strife26]

Anyone want to put odds that they decide that the pipeline needs to go directly through the Strife property in North Dakota instead? The Army Corps of Engineers has a strange habit of screwing things up for my family.

[TheDarkStar]

EDIT: The Army Corps of Engineers has apparently just suspended the Dakota Access Pipeline. I suspect this might be short-lived thanks to Trump, but it's still good news.

Finally.

[Strife26]

Survival and spread of the liberal justice and Western civilization is more important than keeping adherence to the old, ancient and horribly backwards and outdated laws - that's why the West has been supporting all these colour revolutions, after all!

The West supported those revolutions because it benefited our power bloc, and for no other reason. Nobody in politics actually believes in this kind of rhetoric, which is why I've been so skeptical of your seriousness.

It's also terrifying rhetoric. The rule of law isn't something to get abandoned for shits and giggles. America has, as a democracy, had a longer run of peaceful transfers of power than *anyone*. You don't piss away the most robust liberal political document and structure ever on the basis of your super-fuzzy, future-looking "survival, liberal justice, and Western Civilization" claims.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

In response to/agree-ance with @MetalSlimeHunt's last point, my question is, when did people start seeing the US as the Land of Moral High Ground? This is a country that has, at different points in history, used guerrilla warfare, promoted Imperialism, committed genocide on a scale you would think impossible, actively used overwhelming force to coerce other nations and groups into deals which lopsidedly benefitted the US, supported notorious terrorist and insurgent groups all over the world, and has invaded countries with no more pretext than to ensure their economic interests are safe.