Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
User Journal

Journal smittyoneeach's Journal: Three Easy Peasy Lemon Squeezy Political Attacks On Trump 133

Journal by smittyoneeach
The 14th Amendment is a dead letter. 06Jan was an Op.

Instead:

1. Point out that DJT is a spendthrift. A substantial fiscal reform platform would do well against him.

2. While 06Jan was a farce, him letting the prisoners of 06Jan was terrible. He tacitly agrees with the bogus charges by not making an issue of the disgusting treatment of citizens.

3. He can't both take victory laps over Operation Warp Speed, and be critical of the Covid response. He could whine that he was the victim of a masterful squeeze play, but he needs to admit that he got rooked.

Our politics is a complete farce. Unless and until we have a no-kidding Article V Convention along lines similar to those articulated by Levin...I have no idea where this goes, but it looks like a dog's breakfast to me.

EXIT QUESTION: Why are the opponents not arguing the obvious?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Three Easy Peasy Lemon Squeezy Political Attacks On Trump More

Three Easy Peasy Lemon Squeezy Political Attacks On Trump

Comments Filter:

  • The constitution is good enough as it is. We have to vote out the incumbents and the ruling Party, and then the issue is moot

    But if you want money for people with minds that hate
    All I can tell you is, brother, you have to wait

    • It could awaken the Sleeping Giant, yes. Your child-like faith in mail-in ballots to provide a fair election is cute. The corruption of everything else in the system is complete.

      • Your child-like faith in mail-in ballots...

        Whoa! Wait... What makes you think I'm okay with that? I mean, absentee ballots and early voting can be legit, but wide scale mail-ins and no ID? No way! I spelled out exactly what can work, but have been blown off completely

        • Aye, and you'll continue to be blown off, and no amount of magical thinking about repeating the same motions in the hope of different results will being joy. This is why I doubt anything short of Article V is more than a fart in a thunderstorm.

          • and you'll continue to be blown off

            And thus you shall continue to stagnate, at best. You will not bring any joy with your own magical fantasies about your silly Article V. Just know your children will have to suffer through what you wish for even if you don't live long enough to see it

            • your own magical fantasies about your silly Article V

              It is quite possible that your assessment is correct. We speak of the future here.

              I would contend that, in a fashion similar to parents emerging at school board meetings to ask "What the WHAT?" about transing their children, the sleeping American giant would awake at the chance to make substantive alterations to our corrupt political context (CPT).

              That CPT is killing us.

              Choice are:

              * Die slow--the default case
              * Die quickly--the risk, or
              * Possibly attend to matters--a decent likelihood

              But we need

              • The courage is in following your own path regardless what the others do. To simply follow along for convenient expediency is pure cowardice

                • I mean, it could be cowardice, but you're asserting God-like judgement over a whole spectrum of motives, among which cowardice very well could be prominent.

                  In general, "is" happens to be a powerful word, best deployed with reflection.

                  Stipulating that cowardice is the chief driver for lack of courage, what do you recommend as a means to toughen people?

                  • what do you recommend as a means to toughen people?

                    self control... self discipline

                    • self control... self discipline

                      In what direction? To what end? People wasting themselves on video games exhibit copious control and discipline.

                    • People wasting themselves on video games exhibit copious control and discipline.

                      Just the opposite, they're just addicts

                    • Yeah, but so what? You have demurred from offering any context in which their addiction can be evaluated and judged negatively. Why NOT game all day, sir?

                    • What "context" are you talking about? sounds like another one of your diversions from the subject. Self discipline and control are absolutes, they stand alone

                    • "Context" is the criteria by which judgements are arrived at. The past and the future content. I need more than merely tactics to figure out if the strategy is sound. But you likely know this, and may be going into your (apparent) "coy" mode.
  • Your team is nothing but cult members, bowing down to Saint Donald. While his name rhymes with the name of your previous patron saint, the platform is decidedly different. Reagan at least was not an open fascist, and was willing to show some dignity to people he disagreed with.

    There is no point in presenting logic against his cult. It's been tried and they just deflect because they see reality as a Leftist Conspiracy.

    • Your team is nothing but cult members, bowing down to Saint Donald.

      That's a really great mind-reading troll you have there. But why the restraint? As long as you're Making Noise Up like this, why not go ahead and make them all white supremacist, neo-Nazi, anti-democratic, insurrectionist, climate-denying homophobes? Once we've joined your reality departure, let the talking points fly to the heavens, say I.

      • You yourself have abandoned several principles that you used to hold dear, because Your Dear Leader has told you they are no longer important. It is abundantly clear to all that the GOP is a cult, lead by Trump. His values used to clash with those of the GOP in several important ways and now his values are theirs without exception.

        • You yourself have abandoned several principles that you used to hold dear

          I recall you getting very tut-tutty at me recently for even hinting at insight into your thought.

          Whereas I've offered a full existential model here in the form of Maslow-3D on here.

          And yet you cheerfully insult me.

          I love you. You're the best.

          • You yourself have abandoned several principles that you used to hold dear

            And yet you cheerfully insult me.

            How is that observation insulting? I'm sorry if the truth hurts your feelings but I have shown how you - just like so many others from Your Team - have abandoned principles that used to be of great importance to you, simply because your Dear Leader told you they were no longer important.

            • It is false. I cling increasingly to the truth that is the Carpenter, as I have for the last 40+ years.

              But I support and defend your constitutional right to debase yourself this way.

              • It is false. I cling increasingly to the truth that is the Carpenter, as I have for the last 40+ years.

                Right up until Saint Donald tells you which principles of The Carpenter are no longer important, then you go ahead and do that instead. Granted you cherry picked a whole lot of gospels already, but now you're following someone who holds old tabloids in more reverence than he does the Bible.

      • The question of whether or not your team has devolved into a cult has been settled. The GOP undoubtedly is a cult of Trump. The only way for people to escape the cult is to leave the GOP entirely, and that requires them to relinquish power so there is no chance of that happening.

        The open question though is whether or not it is a suicide cult. Clearly some people believe it to be. Whether they will be proven right or wrong is yet to be determined.

        • The question of whether or not your team has devolved into a cult has been settled. The GOP undoubtedly is a cult of Trump.

          It's not, but I have to wonder to what degree your foot-stompy insistence on this counter-factual may be driven by envy. I, for one, doubt that Trump's early commanding lead in the polls offends you so much as the fact that the Tangerine Tamerlane is outside the control of the DNC.

          If "Your Team" were fielding such a figure, rather than a zombie, "Your Team's" tune would be as mellifluous about that figure as it was Obama, when there were school kids singing literal hymns. Cult, indeed.

          • The question of whether or not your team has devolved into a cult has been settled. The GOP undoubtedly is a cult of Trump.

            It's not

            If that is the case then there should be at least one elected official from Your Team who declared themselves a "never Trumper" during the 2016 election cycle who held true to that principle and opposed him after he was elected. I cannot find one, indeed several came around to suck up to him profoundly.

            If that is the case then there should be people from Your Team who are willing to point out his failings and hypocrisies and try to bring Your Team back to the principles it used to be based on. I cann

            • Romney

              • Romney

                And for even daring to suggest that he might not support 110% of Trump's ambitions he has very nearly been chased out of the cult. Many are throwing the dreaded RINO mark on him.

                • It's not [a cult]

                  If that is the case then there should be at least one elected official from Your Team who declared themselves a "never Trumper" during the 2016 election cycle who held true to that principle and opposed him

                  Romney

                  And for even daring to suggest that he might not support 110% of Trump's ambitions he has very nearly been chased out of the cult.

                  You stand refuted, yet bloviate on. #GoodWork

                  • It's not [a cult]

                    If that is the case then there should be at least one elected official from Your Team who declared themselves a "never Trumper" during the 2016 election cycle who held true to that principle and opposed him

                    Romney

                    And for even daring to suggest that he might not support 110% of Trump's ambitions he has very nearly been chased out of the cult.

                    [petty insult rather than actual information]

                    Let's look at Romney's record in the Senate. He started midway through the Presidential Administration of Saint Donald, so there aren't a lot of votes to look at, which makes it fairly straightforward. I'll let Five Thirty Eight tally it up for us [fivethirtyeight.com].

                    Unsurprisingly he voted with Trump the vast majority of the time. The most notable times when he voted against the leader of Your Team were when Trump was on trial, or when Trump was trying to take even more executive power. Notably on Feb 13 2020 he very

                    • he was censured in his own state, and booed in congress

                      So, your partisan hack point stands refuted, yes?

                    • he was censured in his own state, and booed in congress

                      So, your partisan hack point stands refuted, yes?

                      Care to elaborate? From my vantage point that supports my earlier claim that the Cult of Trump (formerly the GOP) will drive out anyone from its membership that dares to challenge The Dear Leader. The Cult has already started to take action against him for daring to not be like the rest; wait until his reelection comes around to see how much fury they bring against him.

                    • Your task was to find a dissenter, and I pointed out a prominent (though by no means sole) example.
                    • Yet the question was

                      If that is the case then there should be at least one elected official from Your Team who declared themselves a "never Trumper" during the 2016 election cycle who held true to that principle and opposed him after he was elected. I cannot find one, indeed several came around to suck up to him profoundly.

                      And you came up with someone who aligned themselves with him over 76% of the time. That's not much of a

                      dissenter

                      Especially considering some of what he said about Trump earlier. It looks like most of the time he was willing to follow the cult just like everyone else, and a couple times he happened to find his backbone.

                    • Criteria #1

                      at least one elected official from Your Team who declared themselves a "never Trumper" during the 2016 election cycle

                      Criteria #2

                      And you came up with someone who aligned themselves with him over 76% of the time.

                      Sometimes I struggle to remember that I am the goalpost mover, and stuff.

                    • You moved the goalposts by not addressing the full sentence. As I said:

                      If that is the case then there should be at least one elected official from Your Team who declared themselves a "never Trumper" during the 2016 election cycle who held true to that principle and opposed him after he was elected. I cannot find one, indeed several came around to suck up to him profoundly.

                      And while you found someone who was a "never Trumper" you did not find someone who opposed him after his election. If he actually opposed him, then why would we find that he

                      aligned themselves with him over 76% of the time.

                    • We have at least one, who opposed at least once. Quantifiers mean stuff.
                    • Once again, we see how differently you apply the rules for people who are on Your Team, compared to those who are not on your team. Romney is - for your argument here - some sort of bold "Mavericky" type because he opposed your Dear Leader at least once. Yet any democrat who was ever photographed with anyone who ever met Bernie Sanders' barber is a raging socialist.

                    • some sort of bold "Mavericky" type

                      Indeed, Willard Mitt inherits much of J.S.McCain's GOP Elite cache, which has stood athwart Trump at all points.

                      Now, to your point, the degree to which they are "frenemies" or not is an open question.

                      But frenemies they are, and Mitt is very much in Zombie Mitch's elite orbit.

                      These are the Democrat-adjacent RINOs that need to be liquidated.

                    • Mitt is very much in Zombie Mitch's elite orbit.

                      These are the Democrat-adjacent RINOs that need to be liquidated.

                      I'm really not sure how to parse that statement from you. Being as you have been cheering the hardest for the people who have been the closest friends to your Dear Leader, I'm leaning toward it being sincere (assuming of course that "liquidated" means something other than killed). Being as you often champion extralegal removal of Democrats for the sole crime of being democrats, this also lines up on that as well.

                    • Democrat-adjacent RINOs

                      Your belief that democrats and republicans are in opposition only reveals that your apparent naïveté is a perfect match to d_r's

                      Regret being too subtle. "Democrat-adjacent RINOs" means "allied". There is plenty of hormonal whinging on offer, but no actual, substantive opposition in our politics. This is why, for example, Ronald Regan did shag-all to rid us of the soft chains of entitlements.

                    • Yes, I do mean "voted out". Great hyperventilating there.
                    • Sweet, sweet impasse.

                    • Yes, I do mean "voted out".

                      Is that your acknowledgement that the election "reforms" you support really devalue the vote quite significantly by way of how many people they would prevent from voting?

                    • I want every lawful voter to contribute their one (1) ballot to an election that is free and fair.

                      A fair election is a secure one, where the secret ballot is respected, and shenanigans are minimized.

                      All we ever seem to get from Your Team is endless caterwauling that anything less than sheer electoral anarchy is "prevent[ing people] from voting".

                      Piss off.

                    • I want every lawful voter to contribute their one (1) ballot to an election that is free and fair.

                      Except you don't want mail in voting.

                      Except you don't want early voting.

                      Except you don't want people to be able to contest jerrymandering.

                      That said, the one person from the GOP you could name who dared to counter your Dear Leader (a whopping 22 percent of the time) has announced they won't be running again [cnn.com], so I guess you got your wish on that. Of course you'd rather people not vote for his position anyways, as you've stated you don't want the unwashed masses to have a chance to elect US Senators.

                    • Except you don't want mail in voting.

                      Service members are an obvious use-case, as I have said.

                      Except you don't want early voting.

                      I vote early every time. The Constitution says "Election Day", not "Election Season". I don't expect any interaction with you on this obvious point.

                      Except you don't want people to be able to contest jerrymandering.

                      Well, that came from nowhere at all. What I would do with redistricting is publish a federal algorithm that moves the bun fight to the data entry. Everything "Your Team" has said about gerrymandering is false; props for being consistent here.

                    • Except you don't want mail in voting.

                      Service members are an obvious use-case, as I have said.

                      So for a small group - who you likely assume will support Your Team in overwhelming numbers - you support mail-in voting. You have told us before that you oppose it for the general public though.

                      Except you don't want early voting.

                      I vote early every time. The Constitution says "Election Day", not "Election Season".

                      So how early would you let someone vote, especially if they are daring to vote for the wrong team? How early do you vote? If we could open up the polls a week ahead that would improve turnout for many. We also have plenty of voters who make up their minds months or years before the polls open, why make them wa

                    • You have told us before that you oppose it for the general public though.

                      I support Election Day as delineated in the Constitution, and strict scrutiny for exceptions, e.g. military.

                      So how early would you let someone vote, especially if they are daring to vote for the wrong team?

                      Incoherent sentence. A secret ballot is a secret ballot. How would I know how their ballot is marked? Oh, and my district is +20D anyway, adding to the hilarity of your peevish innuendo.

                      Emphasis mine:

                      We have plenty of cases of blatant gerrymandering that you have happily supported before because it benefits your team.

                      Mind-reading. I have repeatedly argued for a published algorithm to calculate legislative districts.

                      We have several particularly blatant cases (Wisconsin comes to mind) where if you tally up how many votes when D vs how many votes went R and compare them to the composition of representatives you see a huge disagreement.

                      Recommend you do the homework here. Population is an important, but not sole, input into how legislat

                    • You raise some great points, and incur some serious logistical questions.

                      1. How can I guarantee that Q. Wolfgang Imboodaga doesn't vote multiple times in various precincts?

                      2. If the distribution of voters is random, how can I staff my precincts such that the voters don't all show up at precinct X for some reason? The point of precincts is to ensure an even distribution of voters, so that equipment and staff can be managed. You're begging for chaos even without a party deciding to engage in a bit of skul
                    • 1. OK, so, you're managing a poll book that says who votes where. You've basically described the status quo, at least in my county. But there are other things that you've not considered. Do you really want us all "moving" into your neighborhood for a week so that we can participate in your local election and put a Total Piece Of Work in place for your county supervisor? Because any nefarious play you can think of (and a fistful that you have not) SHALL be run on your election, leaving you shrieking "UNFAIR

              • Just more status quo, as is everybody else you have mentioned so far. You follow the lemmings too, eh?

                • Anyone not supporting an Article V convention is certainly more lemming than Lemmy.

                  • Your Article V is the epitome of lemming psychology

                    • How so? It is by no means a popular idea, and many of the conservative ilk take a John Bircher stance that might seem familiar to you.
                    • Wanting fair, secure elections is "restricting who can vote"?

                      Have you looked at the reality of how loaded the system is against people getting on the ballot?

                      You and d_r both seem to see whatever the heck you want in my postings.

                    • There is nothing fair about forcing people to register when their ID gives them the right.

                      I submit that a sober review of the requirements, risks, costs, and benefits of the entire system for example, that of Virginia [virginia.gov] will show that, if anything, what's on the books is too loosey-goosey, from an election integrity standpoint.

                      Now, some despicable, lying colostomy bags will attempt to transform any security measures into "racism" or other bollocks.

                      I have two words for these idiots, the second of which is "you!"

                    • Wanting fair, secure elections is "restricting who can vote"?

                      If fair is actually a goal, then why are you opting for more restrictions on who can vote, when, and where? If you really want to be fair then what is wrong with early voting or voting by mail? If you really want fair then why aren't you showing support for making election day a national holiday to make it easier for people who are working low-paying jobs - and especially those who are working more than one low-paying job - to get to the polls? It's a challenge for a lot of people to get to the polls un

                    • Evading what? I've shown you a link to one of 50 sets of election laws. If you want to reform things (sure, let us do this) then it is incumbent upon you to do the homework and build support for a specific agenda.

                      Random bumper stickers on \. just don't cut it, sorry.
                    • "secure"
                    • So in other words, you want an election that is secured for your team, and fair for those who will vote for it? You could have just said that. You don't seem to have much interest in those who have been running into obstacles for decades against exercising their right to vote. It seems your primary interest is in ensuring that only the "right" people are able to vote, and win elections.

                      I believe it was another fascist - of similar cloth to the leaders of Your Team - who said that the people who count

                    • So in other words, you want an election that is secured for your team, and fair for those who will vote for it?

                      That is what you said, and "Your Team" apparently works toward, lawfare onslaught and all.

                      Whereas I was after the clean, pure, simple, common understanding of elections.

                    • It is your "agenda" of maintaining the status quo

                      I've never before in my life heard someone argue that altering the status quo is actually maintaining the status quo. Truly, sir, you are a sight to behold.

                    • I have stated how to kill it, not alter it. You obviously don't want that

                      What I want is for the principles captured in the Declaration of Independence and reified in the Constitution to be carried forward in our modern age.

                      Human history is stacked against the course of American exceptionalism, and we currently regress toward the authoritarian course of human history.

                      If we can step back a bit, we're arguing about how to get back on course. Who controls the helm. Confidence in "We the People" breaking the [your term here] grip on the wheel and moving power/money/control out of

                    • The incumbents will never give up their power willingly

                      I'm still awaiting your alternative magic that has failed to arrive since Woodrow set us on the path to destruction a century+ back. Possibly your magic wand is being delivered by a driver named Godot.

                    • And the destruction precedes Wilson by a very long shot

                      The 16A, 17A, and the Federal Reserve Act in 2013 were the seed planting. If you want to talk about how the ground was plowed and fertilized, that's fine.

                    • 1913

                    • Whereas I was after the clean, pure, simple, common understanding of elections.

                      So then it is just pure coincidence - and nothing else - that all of your "common sense" reforms would result in fewer votes cast by people from the inner cities, people of low income, and people who work multiple jobs?

                    • So you want to take away our vote for the senate and let corrupt local politicians decide for us?

                      I want us to appreciate the original object model and understand that the worst woes are due to the Progressive tweaks to that model.

                      And why was it better before the federal reserve?

                      Because letting people feel the weight of folly means that that folly resolves sooner.

                    • I'm perfectly comfortable with, for example, making Election Day a national holiday--move Veteran's Day, for example--to ease the challenge of casting a ballot. Securely. There aren't any secure ways that respect the secret ballot and support large-scale mail-in ballots.

                      On the margin, having some (e.g. active duty military) vote by mail is OK, but about the time things get contentious, we see shenanigans afoot:

                      https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2023/08/14/wait-what-did-michigan-just-hand-over-to-th [townhall.com]

                    • Why is letting "We the People" vote for the senate worse than letting corrupt local politicians do it?

                      (At least) two reasons:
                      1. The Progressive tweaks to the original architecture of elected offices have been bad.
                      2. In particular, the States have been reduced to over-sized counties with license plates. Power has been centralized. We are effectively a single, honking big gerontocratic state. The same zombies are sent back too frequently because the system incentivizes, say, a NY to send a Schumer. If we returned to the original architecture, then a change of party is more likely to alter the composition in

                    • What is meant by "progressive tweaks"?

                      16A, 17A and the Federal Reserve Act.

                    • Sorry, the 17th is kinda progressive, handing more power directly to the people

                      And that, sir, is the acme of Progress: the appearance of choice, while effectively removing it. Check the incumbency rate over time, and watch it break 90% over the 20th century. "Power to the people" is WOOT: Words Of Opposite Translation. Ya got "booped" boss.

                    • Reelection hasn't changed for over 150 years.

                      See: https://directorblue.blogspot.com/2009/08/one-chart-to-rule-them-all.html [blogspot.com]

                    • How can an Article V do anything about that without taking their rights away in some fashion?

                      I mean, if you want to do masturbatory victory laps about abstract rights, then I've got a deep state with a "D" end and an "R" end that will cheer you on, your bad self. #TheShowMustGoOn

                      If you want to shift the balance of power away from the RNC/DNC cabal, back to the state and local level, some contextual alterations (term limits, anyone?) will be needful.

                      I'll even agree in advance with you that the net corruption is probably constant in either the status quo or post-Article V case; what's arguably an

                    • Balkanized corruption is no different from universal corruption

                      Take a naval architecture course, and study "compartmentalization".

                      While Danelo Cavalcante and Adolf Hitler differ in degree, not kind, and it matters not who snuffed one if one is the victim, I submit that the degree DOES matter. Understood, I am in 'denial' here, because I have dared to raise some existential points, but I kinda feel those points are important.

        • The only way for people to escape the cult is to leave the GOP entirely

          Yeah, but not by joining the DNC sect. Their followers are just as fanatical, refusing to seek out something else and dissing those who do. So I will say you are projecting, though that is old news

          • Fustakrakitch, you're rehearsing an argument that happened within the Tea Parties a dozen years ago. Those of us holding the GOP in contempt and our noses to vote Republican understand that the ideological purity of voting for, e.g. a Ross Perot, gets you a Bubba LoveMuffin.

            Vote as you will; all I do (in the real world) is encourage legal voters to participate.

            Purity is the course we want to get to; Pragmatism is the course that we're on, and what we need to work with.

            Vote Purity in the primary, but u

            • The tea was a sad joke from the beginning, a faction of regular republicans.

              your divisive success will mirror that of the Native Americans in the face of the U.S. Cavalry.

              Obviously might makes right then. "Divisive" that's funny. Each individual has to coalesce, just the opposite of divide and conquer, which is how your system survives.. And, you and d_r are still hooked on Trump, keeping him alive on the front page of every discussion

      • Unfortunately he is right. Trumpism is a dangerous cult, and you have entirely abandoned your professed values in his name [easttexasnews.com]. You disrespect your own "savior", and now worship the golden calf in his place. But take heart, d_r is also in denial of his own fanaticism, so the usual hilarity ensues

        • So, you've joined d_r in reading my mind and indulging your confirmation bias? I am striving to achieve "shocked", and falling short.

          • Not reading your mind, I'm reading your posts. You still worship the man

            • I should think this post evidence to the contrary, but go on. One feels as though arguing with d_r.

              • You are a true believer [slashdot.org] "Trump has a chance of being equipped to turn the country around." Every bit as fanatical as d_r

                • Whereas "Trump has no chance" is NOT a fanatical formulation? Please.

  • But #1 and #3 are, unless the Republicans put up somebody else that is more conservative, the reason I'll be voting for Pete Sonski.

Slashdot Top Deals

"It's the best thing since professional golfers on 'ludes." -- Rick Obidiah

Close