SciFiFisher wrote:Yes, it seems that the House and Pelosi were finally forced to concede that they needed to open Impeachment proceedings. Of course, with the way this administration drags out every single request for information the investigation is probably going to be a long painful one. It may help if the House starts actually leveling contempt charges and fining people as well as having them locked up. Historically, they have been very reluctant to actually jail people. But, these are not ordinary times.
SciFiFisher wrote:..Because if they didn't ditch him after he confessed to being a sexual predator, a liar, and a treasonous moron they sure AF won't ditch him for a liddle' old fashioned election rigging.
Rommie wrote:For sure. I think the fascinating thing about the obsession about "The Base" is there's no reason to assume they are as important as they are. They've literally always been a minority. But I think ultimately they are the only way the GOP realized they could win without actually doing any internal structural changes, so they'd rather pander to that minority than change things.
I guess the part that drives me bonkers are all the Republican voters I know who vehemently dislike the base, and their Republicanism is independent of them. Have I got news for you, mister...
Sigma_Orionis wrote:Rommie wrote:For sure. I think the fascinating thing about the obsession about "The Base" is there's no reason to assume they are as important as they are. They've literally always been a minority. But I think ultimately they are the only way the GOP realized they could win without actually doing any internal structural changes, so they'd rather pander to that minority than change things.
I guess the part that drives me bonkers are all the Republican voters I know who vehemently dislike the base, and their Republicanism is independent of them. Have I got news for you, mister...
They sound like that cliche about alcoholics who refuse to admit they're addicted "I can stop at anytime".
It is a hopeless misjudgment to think that one could force a dictatorial regime upon the German nation. [...] The diversity of the German people calls for democracy.
— Theodor Wolff in Frankfurter Zeitung, Jan 1933
Charles Murray, a political scientist affiliated with the American Enterprise Institute and the author of “Coming Apart,” believes that Trump is
a malignant narcissist, which includes as symptoms some of the most unattractive qualities that human beings can have. He also exhibits textbook traits of mental decline that have worsened measurably over the last three years. I find in him no evidence of redeeming traits — no instance of loyalty to a friend in trouble or of unconditional generosity. I despise him and think he is unfit to be president.
Despite that, Murray continued, “it is also quite possible that I will find myself voting for him next year.” The conservative scholar said he approves of many of the things that have happened during the Trump years — especially “the judges he has appointed and the steps to roll back stupid and obstructive regulations. I also think that the nation needs to control its borders and limit low-skill immigration.”
While Joe Biden might be an acceptable choice, in Murray’s view, “a Warren or Sanders presidency would be a disaster for the nation.”
Murray concluded:
So there you have it: I despise the man, worry that he will make terrible foreign policy blunders, but from my perspective policies under Trump are vastly superior to the policies that would be pursued by the leading Democratic candidates. It’s a Hobson’s choice.
geonuc wrote:The idea that policies are what matters, not the person, is something I've endorsed. So I can tolerate a Republican who despises Trump but likes where the nation is going.
It's a little like folks who point out that Bill Clinton was person with somewhat loose morals (nowhere near as loose as the Mango Mussolini's, mind you). My response is always: I don't give a shit who he fucked in the White House or how many times Hillary had to defend him while holding nose. His policies were smart and good for the nation, and the world.
geonuc wrote:The idea that policies are what matters, not the person, is something I've endorsed. So I can tolerate a Republican who despises Trump but likes where the nation is going.
It's a little like folks who point out that Bill Clinton was person with somewhat loose morals (nowhere near as loose as the Mango Mussolini's, mind you). My response is always: I don't give a shit who he fucked in the White House or how many times Hillary had to defend him while holding nose. His policies were smart and good for the nation, and the world.
lady_*nix wrote:@Sigma
I wouldn't be surprised if Senate Republicans would rather support an autocracy like Turkey just on principle; vs. one of the few forces in the region that is, like, known for being democratic and positive towards women. Erdogan is a lot closer to what they represent ideologically.
Edit: they might still be chicken to state this too openly, though, even if it's the same shit the US has been doing since the 50s.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests