Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Pouncey wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
God forbid that he listens to his constituency... I mean... nooooooo... feth his supporters. amirite?

And here it is. The absolute gold standard in my guy vs you guy.

Because when Obama pushes the limits of executive action, it's a dangerous threat to democracy. When a Republican congress pushes the limits on presidential appointments, then they're just doing what their supporters want.

Uurgh.

And then, you'll rah-rah cheer the Democrat Senators in obstructing as much as they can while you pooh-pooh Drumpf when he reverses many of Obama's EO.

amirite?

I can only speak for myself here, but it'd be nice if the Americans could stop viewing their opposing political party as the enemy and simply create a functioning government instead of an eternal pissing contest where each side does their best to obstruct and undermine the other while the country suffers for it.

There is A LOT more to bipartisan conflict then just "oh they don't agree on issues" that's not fair to ignore. You can't just say "lets put aside our difference and fix the government" because the conflict is about how to fix the government. And for many, both parties see the other side's positions as so terrible that it will destroy the country and can not happen by any means necessary.

 sebster wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
And then, you'll rah-rah cheer the Democrat Senators in obstructing as much as they can while you pooh-pooh Drumpf when he reverses many of Obama's EO.

amirite?

If Democrats block a Trump/Republican bill that I think is a bad idea, that'll be fine.

If Democrats form a strategy to block absolutely everything from day 1 under the scheme first developed by Gingrich and then expanded under Boehner, then that would be terrible. If Democrats block a debt ceiling approval in order to force concessions, that will be terrible. If Democrats straight up refuse to allow hearings on any Trump appointed Supreme Court justice, that will be terrible.

Do you see the difference?

No. I do not.

Because you're coming from a perspective the you believe you are in the "right", and any contrarian views will be "wrong".

I'm using quotes on purpose here...

Because, people can disagree on policy and just because one side refuses to compromise or cross the fething aisle... you'll get the gridlock we've been seeing post 2010.

This is a perk in the system... not a design flaw. The Federal Government should NOT be fast, and nimble. When you affect 300 million people in a diverse nation like ours... you want our congress critters to be as deliberative as possible.

And, if the two sides can't agree to work together? Then gak ain't getting done.

 CrownAxe wrote:
There is A LOT more to bipartisan conflict then just "oh they don't agree on issues" that's not fair to ignore. You can't just say "lets put aside our difference and fix the government" because the conflict is about how to fix the government. And for many, both parties see the other side's positions as so terrible that it will destroy the country and can not happen by any means necessary.

Honestly, I've been starting to feel like I might witness the fall of America within my lifetime.

 Pouncey wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
There is A LOT more to bipartisan conflict then just "oh they don't agree on issues" that's not fair to ignore. You can't just say "lets put aside our difference and fix the government" because the conflict is about how to fix the government. And for many, both parties see the other side's positions as so terrible that it will destroy the country and can not happen by any means necessary.

Honestly, I've been starting to feel like I might witness the fall of America within my lifetime.

Doubt it. All the bad crap you see and hear about is just the loud minority, outliers, and sensational journalism. For most people there lives are good enough to not warrant civil unrest and revolution. We aren't the greatest anymore but we aren't actually doing as bad as the news makes us out to be

 Pouncey wrote:
You're serious?

The Moon Landing is your ultimate justification for any absurd political system you care to come up with?

It's my counterpoint to your nonsense claim about the USA being held back. The government you said is being held back is the very one that planted the flag on the moon. Which, of course means, we're not being held back at all - at last not by our electoral system.

 CrownAxe wrote:
Doubt it. All the bad crap you see and hear about is just the loud minority, outliers, and sensational journalism. For most people there lives are good enough to not warrant civil unrest and revolution. We aren't the greatest anymore but we aren't actually doing as bad as the news makes us out to be

That's good to hear, and the Canadian media's general lack of sensationalism coupled with few stories about the US would suggest the gak has yet to impact the rotary impeller.

I really don't want you guys to have a civil war. Beyond the obviously horrid losses of life that would occur, my partners live in America and I doubt my communication with them through the Internet would continue through the chaos that would ensue. Not to mention the disruptions to Internet infrastructure as stuff... well, gets blown up in the crossfire.

Really, just calm down with the political rhetoric. The other side's just as freaked out about what you're saying, maybe realize you both have some valid points and just talk it out calmly instead of decreeing the Great Filter is upon us.

 whembly wrote:
And, if the two sides can't agree to work together? Then gak ain't getting done.

This is a problem. The day to day business of governing the country needs to happen, and if the system allows one side to say "we refuse to work" then the system is broken. And there is a fundamental difference between "we object to this particular issue and will not compromise" and "nothing you offer will make us work with you". The former is how the system is supposed to work, the latter is what the republican party has become.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Breotan wrote:
The government you said is being held back is the very one that planted the flag on the moon. Which, of course means, we're not being held back at all - at last not by our electoral system.

Sorry, but this is a ridiculous argument. Planting the flag on the moon is a success, but it's a success that happened over 40 years ago that was barely followed up on. Achieving one thing does not in any way mean that a country is not being held back in general.

 whembly wrote:
And when Democrats are in power, they're all angels...


When Republicans are in power, dissent becomes the highest form of patriotism. Except, of course, when Democrats run the show...

You're talking past my point, again. Opposition is not wrong. It is okay for any member of congress to read a bill and decide they don't want to vote for it. This will often come down to 40+ senators of the party out of power blocking a bill in the senate.

This is different to what Republicans did over the last eight years, where they came in with a pre-meditated plan to block any Obama bill, threaten basic functions of government like payment of debt in order to get concessions, and refuse any possible Supreme Court nomination.

This is an argument you and I have now had for eight years, and we are still at the starting point of that conversation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
No. I do not.

Because you're coming from a perspective the you believe you are in the "right", and any contrarian views will be "wrong".

No, I don't and that conclusion isn't possible from what I just wrote. You're inventing arguments in order to justify your own position.

My actual position, one I've explained to you a bunch of times now, is that governance is more important than politics. Beyond any concern about giving your voters their tax break, or increase their minimum wage or whatever... first and foremost you keep the ship running.

Republicans have rejected that rule entirely. That's my problem with them.

This is a perk in the system... not a design flaw. The Federal Government should NOT be fast, and nimble. When you affect 300 million people in a diverse nation like ours... you want our congress critters to be as deliberative as possible.

It is a perk, when agreed norms of behaviour are followed. When they aren't followed, such as when Republicans decide on a policy of absolute opposition at all times, then things fall apart. When that happens the problem isn't with the system, but with the behaviour of the party undertaking that strategy. And the solution to that will only come when voters wake up and stop accepting destructive politics from their party.

Voters haven't woken up in the Republican party, and likely won't any time soon. I mean feth I've been telling you about this for 8 years and every single time I mention it it's like it's the first time you've ever heard it. What will happen from here almost certainly is that Democrats will adopt a similar strategy.

And then you'll learn what real political dysfunction is about.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
And when Democrats are in power, they're all angels...


When Republicans are in power, dissent becomes the highest form of patriotism. Except, of course, when Democrats run the show...

You're talking past my point, again. Opposition is not wrong. It is okay for any member of congress to read a bill and decide they don't want to vote for it. This will often come down to 40+ senators of the party out of power blocking a bill in the senate.

This is different to what Republicans did over the last eight years, where they came in with a pre-meditated plan to block any Obama bill, threaten basic functions of government like payment of debt in order to get concessions, and refuse any possible Supreme Court nomination.

This is an argument you and I have now had for eight years, and we are still at the starting point of that conversation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
No. I do not.

Because you're coming from a perspective the you believe you are in the "right", and any contrarian views will be "wrong".

No, I don't and that conclusion isn't possible from what I just wrote. You're inventing arguments in order to justify your own position.

My actual position, one I've explained to you a bunch of times now, is that governance is more important than politics. Beyond any concern about giving your voters their tax break, or increase their minimum wage or whatever... first and foremost you keep the ship running.

Republicans have rejected that rule entirely. That's my problem with them.

This is a perk in the system... not a design flaw. The Federal Government should NOT be fast, and nimble. When you affect 300 million people in a diverse nation like ours... you want our congress critters to be as deliberative as possible.

It is a perk, when agreed norms of behaviour are followed. When they aren't followed, such as when Republicans decide on a policy of absolute opposition at all times, then things fall apart. When that happens the problem isn't with the system, but with the behaviour of the party undertaking that strategy. And the solution to that will only come when voters wake up and stop accepting destructive politics from their party.

Voters haven't woken up in the Republican party, and likely won't any time soon. I mean feth I've been telling you about this for 8 years and every single time I mention it it's like it's the first time you've ever heard it. What will happen from here almost certainly is that Democrats will adopt a similar strategy.

And then you'll learn what real political dysfunction is about.

Seb... that's politics.

You've got BOTH sides basically saying "no... YOU move!".

But go ahead... it's Republicans that's practicing destructive politics.

Gimme a fricking break Seb and quite ignoring the bad gak that Democrats has done.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pouncey wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
There is A LOT more to bipartisan conflict then just "oh they don't agree on issues" that's not fair to ignore. You can't just say "lets put aside our difference and fix the government" because the conflict is about how to fix the government. And for many, both parties see the other side's positions as so terrible that it will destroy the country and can not happen by any means necessary.

Honestly, I've been starting to feel like I might witness the fall of America within my lifetime.

Nah...we'd be alright.

General governance in democratic republican is messy.

 whembly wrote:
You've got BOTH sides basically saying "no... YOU move!".

But go ahead... it's Republicans that's practicing destructive politics.

Gimme a fricking break Seb and quite ignoring the bad gak that Democrats has done.

No, this is just more of your same old "both sides" insanity. The democrats nominated a pretty centrist pick for the supreme court in an attempt to compromise, rather than a far-left alternative. The republican party openly said "Obama is not allowed to nominate a justice". These two are NOT equivalent.

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
You've got BOTH sides basically saying "no... YOU move!".

But go ahead... it's Republicans that's practicing destructive politics.

Gimme a fricking break Seb and quite ignoring the bad gak that Democrats has done.

No, this is just more of your same old "both sides" insanity. The democrats nominated a pretty centrist pick for the supreme court in an attempt to compromise, rather than a far-left alternative. The republican party openly said "Obama is not allowed to nominate a justice". These two are NOT equivalent.

Centrist?

Garland sided with the liberals justices in the Court of Appeals in the Heller case... he'd be the deciding vote to overturn Heller.

Garland would side with the liberal justices to overturn Citizen United.

A jurist who'd be the deciding vote to neuter the 1st & 2nd amendent.
he's a hair to the right of Ginsburg.... but, he'd be voting with the liberal jurist at the SC.

Turtle did exactly what he was supposed to do. Yes, it was a gamble as HRC was the heavy favorite... but, he stuck his neck out for his constituents.

 Peregrine wrote:
Sorry, but this is a ridiculous argument. Planting the flag on the moon is a success, but it's a success that happened over 40 years ago that was barely followed up on. Achieving one thing does not in any way mean that a country is not being held back in general.

Yeah, I mean Russia put the first man in space, but I'm not sure anyone would want to make an argument that the Soviet system was any good.

I think there's something of a strange conversation happening here. Recognizing that government in the US is dysfunctional in a way well beyond the ordinary dysfunction of another time or another country doesn't mean that the US is about to collapse or enter a hellish dystopia. It just means that necessary government action will be delayed until you guys get your gak together. And that will have a slow, but steady and compounding effect on the people in your country.

 whembly wrote:
Centrist?

Garland sided with the liberals justices in the Court of Appeals in the Heller case... he'd be the deciding vote to overturn Heller.

Garland would side with the liberal justices to overturn Citizen United.

A jurist who'd be the deciding vote to neuter the 1st & 2nd amendent.
he's a hair to the right of Ginsburg.... but, he'd be voting with the liberal jurist at the SC.

I don't think you understand what "centrist" means. It does not mean "will not vote with the liberal side on any cases". It does not mean "will not vote with the liberal side on this issue I care about". The consensus was that Garland is a relatively centrist "compromise" pick compared to the left-wing alternatives Obama could have nominated. Clearly he wasn't going to nominate the next Scalia, but he didn't nominate someone to the left of any of the existing justices.

Turtle did exactly what he was supposed to do. Yes, it was a gamble as HRC was the heavy favorite... but, he stuck his neck out for his constituents.

No, he broke the system with the same "obstruct at all costs" tactics the republican party has been using. He didn't say "this pick in particular is too extreme and must be opposed at all cost", the republican party openly said "Obama is not allowed to nominate a justice". IOW, they shut down a basic function of government because it wasn't 100% under their control.

 whembly wrote:
Seb... that's politics.

You've got BOTH sides basically saying "no... YOU move!".

But go ahead... it's Republicans that's practicing destructive politics.

Gimme a fricking break Seb and quite ignoring the bad gak that Democrats has done.

And here you are completely ignoring the argument I made, again, and then just claiming without example that Democrats have also done the same.

You refuse to recognise that the strategies employed by Republicans are outside or normal politics, and you fail to produce a single example of Democrats attempting the same. But you will continue to pretend it is true, because the alternative is finally acknowledge that Republicans really have been worse in the last couple of decades.

 sebster wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Sorry, but this is a ridiculous argument. Planting the flag on the moon is a success, but it's a success that happened over 40 years ago that was barely followed up on. Achieving one thing does not in any way mean that a country is not being held back in general.

Yeah, I mean Russia put the first man in space, but I'm not sure anyone would want to make an argument that the Soviet system was any good.

I think there's something of a strange conversation happening here. Recognizing that government in the US is dysfunctional in a way well beyond the ordinary dysfunction of another time or another country doesn't mean that the US is about to collapse or enter a hellish dystopia. It just means that necessary government action will be delayed until you guys get your gak together. And that will have a slow, but steady and compounding effect on the people in your country.

It's not really sudden for me. It's more of a general worry I've had off-and-on over the past decade or so.

Besides, the US entered a "hellish dystopia" already. Basically early 20th century sci-fi dystopian fiction has come true within the past few decades.

1984 was right though. No one really cares to do much when we can just argue on the Internet.

Why don't I do anything? Generally I believe myself to be powerless and no one would follow me. Also I'm Canadian, which often isn't much better, but there's a difference worth arguing.

 Pouncey wrote:
Personally I find your country's obsession with "State's Rights" to be a bizarre and antiquated notion that's been holding your country back for centuries.

So bizarre and antiquated that the European Union is basically trying to do the same thing, but with countries instead of states. Except they appoint a president of the European Council instead of electing him. I wonder if a vote in the EU to appoint one if they chose to do it that way would wind up like the US elections, where each "state" votes and the states are tallied.

 Just Tony wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
Personally I find your country's obsession with "State's Rights" to be a bizarre and antiquated notion that's been holding your country back for centuries.

So bizarre and antiquated that the European Union is basically trying to do the same thing, but with countries instead of states. Except they appoint a president of the European Council instead of electing him. I wonder if a vote in the EU to appoint one if they chose to do it that way would wind up like the US elections, where each "state" votes and the states are tallied.

No doubt in the 23rd century, if the EU is still around, people then will question that same 200+ year old system that doesn't make sense anymore.

I heard about the assassination shesh that is going to do wonders with foreign relations...

 Breotan wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

What are you talking about? We love democracy. All these rules are put in place to prevent abuses, not to prevent democracy.

You have two systems in place designed to stop the democratic election of your President in favor of shifting it to a secondary election by smaller and smaller numbers of people.

This has been explained multiple times in this thread. Yes, we do not have a "democratic election of our President" in general. We have 50 separate STATE elections plus one in Washington, D.C., each one completely democratic, to assign Electors to the Electoral College. From there, the Electors vote in one general election. This is also completely democratic. The next step is a tiebreaker only. If the EC can't reach a majority for one candidate (270 votes), the House votes for the President and the Senate votes for the Vice President.

Your view that our system is "designed to stop the democratic election of your President" shows that you either don't understand it or don't like it. Okay, but that doesn't mean a tiered system is less democratic than a straight popular vote, it just makes it different.

Personally I find your country's obsession with "State's Rights" to be a bizarre and antiquated notion that's been holding your country back for centuries.

Holding us back for centuries? You cannot possibly be serious. Remind me, which country's flag is on the moon?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now on to other business.

It appears that President Obama is making history again. He's commuted more sentences than the previous eleven Presidents combined. I don't have details on what types of criminals have had their sentences reduced/pardoned.

Here's a bit of the story behind those numbers and President Obama's use of his clemency powers . Wasn't very hard to find.

"With just 32 days left in office, Obama more than doubled the number of pardons he granted in the previous seven years — although he still lags his predecessors. At 148, Obama has granted fewer pardons than any modern president except President George H.W. Bush, who served only one term."

"But Obama continued his vigorous use of a lesser form of his clemency power: He's now used commutations to shorten the sentences of 1,176 federal prison inmates, mostly for long, mandatory-minimum drug sentences imposed during a war on drugs waged over the past three decades."

"Obama has now pardoned 148 people; President George W. Bush pardoned 189 and President Bill Clinton pardoned 396."

Source: USA Today

 Pouncey wrote:
It's not really sudden for me. It's more of a general worry I've had off-and-on over the past decade or so.

Besides, the US entered a "hellish dystopia" already. Basically early 20th century sci-fi dystopian fiction has come true within the past few decades.

I think that's a bit much. I mean, if someone was write a hellish, dystopian novel and then just listed life like it is lived in the US today it wouldn't actually work would it?

That day he woke and drove himself to work... where he should have been paid more than he is!

Then that night he watched the news that reported violence, without mentioning crime is on a 40 year downward trend!

Then he went on the internet and argued about this, and government did nothing to stop him because he is free to speak his mind!

 sebster wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
It's not really sudden for me. It's more of a general worry I've had off-and-on over the past decade or so.

Besides, the US entered a "hellish dystopia" already. Basically early 20th century sci-fi dystopian fiction has come true within the past few decades.

I think that's a bit much. I mean, if someone was write a hellish, dystopian novel and then just listed life like it is lived in the US today it wouldn't actually work would it?

That day he woke and drove himself to work... where he should have been paid more than he is!

Then that night he watched the news that reported violence, without mentioning crime is on a 40 year downward trend!

Then he went on the internet and argued about this, and government did nothing to stop him because he is free to speak his mind!

I was thinking 1984, personally.

 BigWaaagh wrote:
"Obama has now pardoned 148 people; President George W. Bush pardoned 189 and President Bill Clinton pardoned 396."

Source: USA Today

That's pardons. The graph from Breotan was about commutations. Obama is actually commuting a record number of people. They're all non-violent offences, almost all for drugs. Lots of peopel were given decades long sentences, even life, in 80s and 90s, and while the rules for the crimes these people committed have had their sentences reduced, people sentenced under the old law were looked to serve the old length of time. Obama is reducing their sentences to something in line with modern ideas of justice.

Republicans are creating graphs and making a lot of noise about this because that's just what they do. Notice that someone went and made that fancy graph, but didn't actually include any detail about who Obama is commuting or why. Because it's scarier without that information.

There was actually a small hullabaloo about this during the election. Republicans were claiming Obama was pushing all these commuted sentences through before the election so these people would get out there and vote for Clinton. I'm pretty sure someone posted it on dakka. Yeah.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pouncey wrote:
I was thinking 1984, personally.

In 1984 Winston has a tv in his home that he is required to have on and be unobstructed at all times, because the tv is also used to watch him. It is used to force him in to take part in mandatory exercises, and of course the two minutes of hate.

Winston is befriended by a secret policeman who tricks him in to plotting against government, so it can punish him. That punishment involves strapping a rat to his face until he gives in so completely that he actually surrenders his own mind.

Comparing that to the US is a bit of a stretch.

 sebster wrote:
In 1984 Winston has a tv in his home that he is required to have on and be unobstructed at all times, because the tv is also used to watch him. It is used to force him in to take part in mandatory exercises, and of course the two minutes of hate.

Winston is befriended by a secret policeman who tricks him in to plotting against government, so it can punish him. That punishment involves strapping a rat to his face until he gives in so completely that he actually surrenders his own mind.

Comparing that to the US is a bit of a stretch.

I last read that book over a decade ago and could barely remember its plot.

I did remember it was weird and made no sense, and after your description I'm starting to understand why I could follow the LotR book trilogy but not 1984.

That's... just... completely absurd.

 sebster wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:
"Obama has now pardoned 148 people; President George W. Bush pardoned 189 and President Bill Clinton pardoned 396."

Source: USA Today

That's pardons. The graph from Breotan was about commutations. Obama is actually commuting a record number of people. They're all non-violent offences, almost all for drugs. Lots of peopel were given decades long sentences, even life, in 80s and 90s, and while the rules for the crimes these people committed have had their sentences reduced, people sentenced under the old law were looked to serve the old length of time. Obama is reducing their sentences to something in line with modern ideas of justice.

Republicans are creating graphs and making a lot of noise about this because that's just what they do. Notice that someone went and made that fancy graph, but didn't actually include any detail about who Obama is commuting or why. Because it's scarier without that information.

There was actually a small hullabaloo about this during the election. Republicans were claiming Obama was pushing all these commuted sentences through before the election so these people would get out there and vote for Clinton. I'm pretty sure someone posted it on dakka. Yeah.


Automatically Appended Next Post:


.

The sentence you cherry picked from my post is about pardons, yes. My post as a whole...which also touches on the story behind the commuting of sentences graph...was to provide the comparison of pardons which Obama has been pretty light on with the commutations which he's leading on, as both are part of his Clemency Powers and should bear distinction for perspective.

Also, I think it's pretty safe to say that the Republicans don't have a monopoly on producing graphs that are relatively devoid of detail, but which provide supportive "shock value" to their narrative. This one is pretty ham-fisted but it is certainly not unique to the right, as a strategy, by any means.

 BigWaaagh wrote:
The sentence you cherry picked from my post is about pardons, yes.

My bad, I saw pardons mentioned in the first and last sentence, and somehow missed the sentence about clemency in the middle sentence, which in fact made the very same point I did. I almost missed it the second time as well... I need some sleep

Also, I think it's pretty safe to say that the Republicans don't have a monopoly on producing graphs that are relatively devoid of detail, but provide supportive "shock value" to their narrative. This one is pretty ham-fisted but is certainly not unique to the right, as a strategy, by any means.

No, they aren't the only ones to do it. I've just had the pleasure of a friend joining a liberal facebook group, and now I get bs liberal memes shared on my facebook daily.

But I think it is a tactic much more commonly employed by the right. Just reading dakka, you can count on a very steady stream of packaged little bits of nonsense being shared here every other day or thereabouts, similar left wing items are much less common.

Maybe this is another thing where the left is catching up? Or to be more accurate, starting to dig a hole as deep as the right wing is already in?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pouncey wrote:
I last read that book over a decade ago and could barely remember its plot.

I did remember it was weird and made no sense, and after your description I'm starting to understand why I could follow the LotR book trilogy but not 1984.

That's... just... completely absurd.

There's more fantastical stuff in there than that. It isn't supposed to be read as an actual prediction of the future, it's a dystopian novel that shows a hellish future to warn against present problems. In this case of 1984 it was warning against non-democratic socialism, and really on all totalitarian control.

It's a great book, with an incredible number of extraordinary political ideas and concepts.

The real interesting themes of 1984 IMO is the themes of controlling peoples thoughts and attitudes through language and self-censorship in their minds (newspeak, crime-think).

Sadly, the truly poignant lessons of the book is generally overshadowed by shallow comparisons on surveillance technology.

The iconic 1984 surveillance is a very memorable image, but really is not very important at all to the plot of the setting. For all we know, those TV's are not actually able to watch people. What's important is that people believe they do, because they're told that they do.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Seb... that's politics.

You've got BOTH sides basically saying "no... YOU move!".

But go ahead... it's Republicans that's practicing destructive politics.

Gimme a fricking break Seb and quite ignoring the bad gak that Democrats has done.

And here you are completely ignoring the argument I made, again...

At some point, you have to realize you're the problem by repeatedly providing the other half of these interactions. It's been years. He's not going to stop his behaviors. You're never going to provide the magical coherent argument that works, because you've already tried a thousand times. This won't be the time Lucy doesn't yank the football away, Charlie, while screaming gibberish about Vox\Slate\MSNBC.

 Ouze wrote:
At some point, you have to realize you're the problem by repeatedly providing the other half of these interactions. It's been years. He's not going to stop his behaviors. You're never going to provide the magical coherent argument that works, because you've already tried a thousand times. This won't be the time Lucy doesn't yank the football away, Charlie, while screaming gibberish about Vox\Slate\MSNBC.

Though IMO there's some value in doing it for the sake of anyone reading the thread. Whembly will probably never get it, but as long as people keep pointing out how (almost) everything he posts is wrong nobody is going to be persuaded by his arguments. It's a tedious slog sometimes, but I don't think he should be able to speak unopposed.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/266038556504494082

The first Twitter presidency looks like it will play out a clown car pile-up in 140 character think blurbs.

For four years.