You know. Mexico, Coffee Mexico, Portuguese Mexico...
Advertisement
by Cannot think of a name » Mon Apr 01, 2019 12:20 am
by Liriena » Mon Apr 01, 2019 12:27 am
I am: A pansexual, pantheist, green socialist An aspiring writer and journalist | Political compass stuff: Economic Left/Right: -8.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.92 For: Grassroots democracy, workers' self-management, humanitarianism, pacifism, pluralism, environmentalism, interculturalism, indigenous rights, minority rights, LGBT+ rights, feminism, optimism Against: Nationalism, authoritarianism, fascism, conservatism, populism, violence, ethnocentrism, racism, sexism, religious bigotry, anti-LGBT+ bigotry, death penalty, neoliberalism, tribalism, cynicism ⚧Copy and paste this in your sig if you passed biology and know gender and sex aren't the same thing.⚧ |
by Tarsonis » Mon Apr 01, 2019 3:31 am
Liriena wrote:The fact that Biden is polling this high for the primaries gives me the big oofs.
by Valrifell » Mon Apr 01, 2019 3:38 am
Liriena wrote:The fact that Biden is polling this high for the primaries gives me the big oofs.
by Juristonia » Mon Apr 01, 2019 3:45 am
Ifreann wrote:Indeed, as far as I can recall only one poster has ever supported legalising bestiality, and he was fucking his cat and isn't welcome here any more, in no small part, I imagine, because he kept going on about how he was fucking his cat.
by Maineiacs » Mon Apr 01, 2019 6:12 am
by Hediacrana » Mon Apr 01, 2019 6:25 am
by Zurkerx » Mon Apr 01, 2019 7:12 am
by Valrifell » Mon Apr 01, 2019 7:21 am
Zurkerx wrote:Trump's Trap on Immigration: Does someone see it?
The premise of the article: while the 2020 Democratic Candidates are right to condemn Trump's treatment of immigrants, they're only focusing on improving the humane conditions at the border, and not much on the countries they come from. O'Rourke in this case seems to be proposing to address the humanitarian conditions at the border while also saying that we should give aid to these countries, which Trump wants to cut because they haven't done anything for else, or if you believe in Fox's gaffe, "Three Mexican Countries". Now, the article seems bias towards O'Rourke but the underlining argument still stands: focus aid on countries where immigrants come from, which in turn, will reduce immigration overtime. Not a bad approach I would say.
Your thoughts?
by Cannot think of a name » Mon Apr 01, 2019 7:30 am
Valrifell wrote:Zurkerx wrote:Trump's Trap on Immigration: Does someone see it?
The premise of the article: while the 2020 Democratic Candidates are right to condemn Trump's treatment of immigrants, they're only focusing on improving the humane conditions at the border, and not much on the countries they come from. O'Rourke in this case seems to be proposing to address the humanitarian conditions at the border while also saying that we should give aid to these countries, which Trump wants to cut because they haven't done anything for else, or if you believe in Fox's gaffe, "Three Mexican Countries". Now, the article seems bias towards O'Rourke but the underlining argument still stands: focus aid on countries where immigrants come from, which in turn, will reduce immigration overtime. Not a bad approach I would say.
Your thoughts?
A South American Marshall Plan doesn't sound like too bad of an idea, though I imagine there'd be a lot of corruption and pusback because US Imperialism.
by Lynn Nation » Mon Apr 01, 2019 8:25 am
by Tarsonis » Mon Apr 01, 2019 9:07 am
Lynn Nation wrote:The results of the poll above really scare me. I mean, lets go Bernie, but the fact that Trump is a front runner? Have we not learned a thing? Is this some sort of joke that I'm missing out on?
by Cannot think of a name » Mon Apr 01, 2019 9:13 am
Lynn Nation wrote:The results of the poll above really scare me. I mean, lets go Bernie, but the fact that Trump is a front runner? Have we not learned a thing? Is this some sort of joke that I'm missing out on?
by Major-Tom » Mon Apr 01, 2019 9:34 am
Goldwater wrote:IMO, Missouri's Governor race could be interesting. Current Governor Parson (R) took over last year after Former Gov Eric Greitens (R) resigned less than halfway through his first term amid double scandals involving using an email list he built as the President of a 501c(3) charity, and an accusation of taking a non-consensual picture of an otherwise consensual extramarital affair. The Lt. Governor is elected on a separate ticket, so make no mistake that Parson was a Greitens ally or visa versa, Parson has undone several changes including re-hiring the education commissioner Greitens stacked a board to fire. If that wasn't enough to anger "Team Greitens" within the GOP, there's not been a whole lot of fallout from the shocking story that a solidly Republican leaning politician turned media figure paid the lawyer who released audio tapes of Greitens affair 50k in a bundles of cash. That person continues his journalism career despite the fact he reported on the Greitens scandal without revealing his own involvement in the story.
Parson has yet to really define himself in the Governor's office - the legislative session ended last year the day Greitens resigned so nothing has been happening legislatively until a few weeks ago. But stylistically he could not be any more different than Greitens. Greitens was above all else a fighter, and was combative on almost all fronts. It will be interesting how it all shakes out. Greitens left office above water with Republicans, and the recent events surrounding Trump/Russia cause Greiten's own "witch hunt" to age better. Parson, if he runs, seems like just the type of guy that will be easy to label an "establishment" Republican and pound his lights out, and with the big wild card out there that is Greitens and how he'll swing his weight.
And yes, you can count me in the group of MO Republicans with whom it does not sit well that Greitens was ran out of town for his issues, but there seems to be no consequences for the cash payment that is actually and obviously corrupt. Greitens two sins were having sex with someone other than his wife (and maybe taking a photo without permission, an allegation that was never substantiated and a photo which no one could produce) and for taking an email list with him when he left his charity. The first is obviously a personal issue. On the latter, it's not that he stole money, or something that is obviously wrong.. But just that he took the donor list he built with him when he left the charity he founded. I understand why that runs afoul of the law, as it violates what a charity is supposed to be, but seems like the type of law violation that it is easy to see any "regular Joe" making as to him it probably felt like "his charity" so it probably would seem like "his list". All in all, to me something that would be dealt with via a fine and be gone for anyone that wasn't such a target from both parties.
TL;DR The MO Governor that is up for re-election wasn't elected himself, but took over for the last one that resigned, and that could make that seat pretty open to a nasty primary fight.
by Shrillland » Mon Apr 01, 2019 9:58 am
Major-Tom wrote:Goldwater wrote:IMO, Missouri's Governor race could be interesting. Current Governor Parson (R) took over last year after Former Gov Eric Greitens (R) resigned less than halfway through his first term amid double scandals involving using an email list he built as the President of a 501c(3) charity, and an accusation of taking a non-consensual picture of an otherwise consensual extramarital affair. The Lt. Governor is elected on a separate ticket, so make no mistake that Parson was a Greitens ally or visa versa, Parson has undone several changes including re-hiring the education commissioner Greitens stacked a board to fire. If that wasn't enough to anger "Team Greitens" within the GOP, there's not been a whole lot of fallout from the shocking story that a solidly Republican leaning politician turned media figure paid the lawyer who released audio tapes of Greitens affair 50k in a bundles of cash. That person continues his journalism career despite the fact he reported on the Greitens scandal without revealing his own involvement in the story.
Parson has yet to really define himself in the Governor's office - the legislative session ended last year the day Greitens resigned so nothing has been happening legislatively until a few weeks ago. But stylistically he could not be any more different than Greitens. Greitens was above all else a fighter, and was combative on almost all fronts. It will be interesting how it all shakes out. Greitens left office above water with Republicans, and the recent events surrounding Trump/Russia cause Greiten's own "witch hunt" to age better. Parson, if he runs, seems like just the type of guy that will be easy to label an "establishment" Republican and pound his lights out, and with the big wild card out there that is Greitens and how he'll swing his weight.
And yes, you can count me in the group of MO Republicans with whom it does not sit well that Greitens was ran out of town for his issues, but there seems to be no consequences for the cash payment that is actually and obviously corrupt. Greitens two sins were having sex with someone other than his wife (and maybe taking a photo without permission, an allegation that was never substantiated and a photo which no one could produce) and for taking an email list with him when he left his charity. The first is obviously a personal issue. On the latter, it's not that he stole money, or something that is obviously wrong.. But just that he took the donor list he built with him when he left the charity he founded. I understand why that runs afoul of the law, as it violates what a charity is supposed to be, but seems like the type of law violation that it is easy to see any "regular Joe" making as to him it probably felt like "his charity" so it probably would seem like "his list". All in all, to me something that would be dealt with via a fine and be gone for anyone that wasn't such a target from both parties.
TL;DR The MO Governor that is up for re-election wasn't elected himself, but took over for the last one that resigned, and that could make that seat pretty open to a nasty primary fight.
Unless the Missouri GOP decides to run Greitens again (which would be ludicrous), Parson should survive the primary. His sort of demeanor seems cool, content, relaxed, and he might not put up a hell of a fight in the general, leading me to think his largest vulnerability would be a blue-dog, conservative Democrat running against him. Those types have seemed to fare well in Missouri.
by Major-Tom » Mon Apr 01, 2019 10:35 am
Shrillland wrote:Major-Tom wrote:
Unless the Missouri GOP decides to run Greitens again (which would be ludicrous), Parson should survive the primary. His sort of demeanor seems cool, content, relaxed, and he might not put up a hell of a fight in the general, leading me to think his largest vulnerability would be a blue-dog, conservative Democrat running against him. Those types have seemed to fare well in Missouri.
I don't think even a blue dog could beat him. Despite defeating right to work last year, Missouri is no longer a bellweather state that changes with the tide, it is a deep Red state with no serious possibility of Democratic victories statewide.
by G-Tech Corporation » Mon Apr 01, 2019 2:02 pm
Tarsonis wrote:Lynn Nation wrote:The results of the poll above really scare me. I mean, lets go Bernie, but the fact that Trump is a front runner? Have we not learned a thing? Is this some sort of joke that I'm missing out on?
Nope, the Contra Democratus vote is a real thing and should not be underestimated
by Mystic Warriors » Mon Apr 01, 2019 2:14 pm
Lynn Nation wrote:The results of the poll above really scare me. I mean, lets go Bernie, but the fact that Trump is a front runner? Have we not learned a thing? Is this some sort of joke that I'm missing out on?
by Major-Tom » Mon Apr 01, 2019 2:20 pm
Lynn Nation wrote:The results of the poll above really scare me. I mean, lets go Bernie, but the fact that Trump is a front runner? Have we not learned a thing? Is this some sort of joke that I'm missing out on?
by Telconi » Mon Apr 01, 2019 2:26 pm
Major-Tom wrote:Lynn Nation wrote:The results of the poll above really scare me. I mean, lets go Bernie, but the fact that Trump is a front runner? Have we not learned a thing? Is this some sort of joke that I'm missing out on?
Trump's approval ratings nationwide tend not to deviate from the 38% to 45% range (excluding outliers from unreliable pollsters such as Rasmussen). I'd argue that his base is about 40% of registered voters, and they'd stand by Trump if he was caught making out with Giuliani on live television.
In other words, scary, sure, but no surprise.
by Hediacrana » Mon Apr 01, 2019 2:28 pm
Major-Tom wrote:Lynn Nation wrote:The results of the poll above really scare me. I mean, lets go Bernie, but the fact that Trump is a front runner? Have we not learned a thing? Is this some sort of joke that I'm missing out on?
Trump's approval ratings nationwide tend not to deviate from the 38% to 45% range (excluding outliers from unreliable pollsters such as Rasmussen). I'd argue that his base is about 40% of registered voters, and they'd stand by Trump if he was caught making out with Giuliani on live television.
In other words, scary, sure, but no surprise.
by Major-Tom » Mon Apr 01, 2019 2:47 pm
Telconi wrote:Major-Tom wrote:
Trump's approval ratings nationwide tend not to deviate from the 38% to 45% range (excluding outliers from unreliable pollsters such as Rasmussen). I'd argue that his base is about 40% of registered voters, and they'd stand by Trump if he was caught making out with Giuliani on live television.
In other words, scary, sure, but no surprise.
TFW Major Tom complains that people aren't homophobic enough.
by G-Tech Corporation » Mon Apr 01, 2019 2:53 pm
Major-Tom wrote:Lynn Nation wrote:The results of the poll above really scare me. I mean, lets go Bernie, but the fact that Trump is a front runner? Have we not learned a thing? Is this some sort of joke that I'm missing out on?
Trump's approval ratings nationwide tend not to deviate from the 38% to 45% range (excluding outliers from unreliable pollsters such as Rasmussen). I'd argue that his base is about 40% of registered voters, and they'd stand by Trump if he was caught making out with Giuliani on live television.
In other words, scary, sure, but no surprise.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Atrito, Austria-Bohemia-Hungary, Comuny, Corporate Collective Salvation, Duvniask, Ifreann, Mutualist Chaos, Neu Amerikaner Staaten, Norskena, Outer Bratorke, Pale Dawn, Port Carverton, Post War America, Simonia, Too Basedland, Transitional Global Authority, Trump Almighty, Valrifall, Vassenor, Washington-Columbia
Advertisement