"We don't need to investigate our president. We need to arrest Hillary."

[hurtinbuckaroo]

The best thing Hillary could do for the country is just confess to something, anything, and go to prison. GOP wouldn't have anything big enough to distract people with.

 

[Elixir]

DOW down ANOTHER 140 points right now... and more trade war BS coming. Good thing for Cheato that his drooling sycophants don't have money to invest in the stock market.

Ya, that's exactly why he is able to say every point increase is his win and then go silent on every point decrease. confirmation bias that is not accompanied with an actual brokerage account (all of his supporters, less the top 1% that are making billions off the tax cut and deregulation) are left with the impression that the economy is good. Never mind the fact that the stock market is about as good a measure of economic health as a casino's profits are on the commercial health of a neighborhood.

In truth, the underlying foundational economic conditions remain very good, from consumer confidence to durable goods orders and other indicators. The stock market would be doing well also, except that the tax giveaway bump is over and Cheato can't keep his big fat orange mouth shut.

 

[Opoponax]

Seeing that I don't suffer from memory loss, I can still remember November 2016... the cruel ending of a seemingly unending General Election run that started 11 months earlier. The Dems in '18 wouldn't be getting a mandate to do shit. They'd just be elected because people that fell asleep in November 2016 forgot what was actually at stake and this would be something to bring back a little bit of normal.

They didn't forget. Hillary was just THAT unpopular. The Democrats should have seen it coming. They must have known that the Republicans have been running her down for decades. Add in her pro-corporate image and lack of personality and why did they think she could win?

But here's the problem with that. Are the Dems supposed to abandon every candidate the GOP hates? Hillary may have been the most qualified person in U.S. history to be POTUS. And it's not like the GOP would've worked with Sanders or anyone else with (D) attached to their name. Their literally stated mission at the outset of Obama's presidency was to make things so bad that he would only be a one term President. They actually voted against their own legislation at times because they feared it would make Obama look good.

The fact is that they're going to charge up the hate machine against every opposing candidate. Granted, they had 25 years of almost nonstop Hillary bashing, but nowadays, all they have to do is say that Candidate X supported Hillary or is no different from Hillary, etc. and they'll get the desired reaction.

The point is that the GOP can't be allowed to control the Democrat's choices of candidate.

 

[Underseer]

The best thing Hillary could do for the country is just confess to something, anything, and go to prison. GOP wouldn't have anything big enough to distract people with.

You're kidding, right?

Republicans are the party that brought us the "crisis actors" in Sandy Hook, the "deep state" conspiracy to enforce the law, the gay frogs conspiracy, George Soros, pizza-gate, Jade Helm 15, and they have still yet to come up with a goal for the FBI conspiracy against the Branch Davidians, but boy are they certain there was a terrible conspiracy involved there! Aren't conspirators supposed to have some kind of recognizable goal in a conspiracy theory? What exactly was Janet Reno's sinister goal in destroying the Branch Davidians?

Anyway, the Republicans would have no problem cooking up something else.

 

[ElectEngr]

The best thing Hillary could do for the country is just confess to something, anything, and go to prison. GOP wouldn't have anything big enough to distract people with.

You're kidding, right?

Republicans are the party that brought us the "crisis actors" in Sandy Hook, the "deep state" conspiracy to enforce the law, the gay frogs conspiracy, George Soros, pizza-gate, Jade Helm 15, and they have still yet to come up with a goal for the FBI conspiracy against the Branch Davidians, but boy are they certain there was a terrible conspiracy involved there! Aren't conspirators supposed to have some kind of recognizable goal in a conspiracy theory? What exactly was Janet Reno's sinister goal in destroying the Branch Davidians?

Anyway, the Republicans would have no problem cooking up something else.

But...But...wasn't the Branch Davidians about that little Cuban Boy Reno wanted to send back to his dad in Cuba? (I want my smiley faces)

Later,
ElectEngr

 

[Underseer]

Seeing that I don't suffer from memory loss, I can still remember November 2016... the cruel ending of a seemingly unending General Election run that started 11 months earlier. The Dems in '18 wouldn't be getting a mandate to do shit. They'd just be elected because people that fell asleep in November 2016 forgot what was actually at stake and this would be something to bring back a little bit of normal.

They didn't forget. Hillary was just THAT unpopular. The Democrats should have seen it coming. They must have known that the Republicans have been running her down for decades. Add in her pro-corporate image and lack of personality and why did they think she could win?

But here's the problem with that. Are the Dems supposed to abandon every candidate the GOP hates? Hillary may have been the most qualified person in U.S. history to be POTUS. And it's not like the GOP would've worked with Sanders or anyone else with (D) attached to their name. Their literally stated mission at the outset of Obama's presidency was to make things so bad that he would only be a one term President. They actually voted against their own legislation at times because they feared it would make Obama look good.

The fact is that they're going to charge up the hate machine against every opposing candidate. Granted, they had 25 years of almost nonstop Hillary bashing, but nowadays, all they have to do is say that Candidate X supported Hillary or is no different from Hillary, etc. and they'll get the desired reaction.

The point is that the GOP can't be allowed to control the Democrat's choices of candidate.

Yup.

Clinton and Obama both believed that if only they caved in to the Republicans enough, the Republicans would be more reasonable.

Anyone who still thinks that way is delusional. At this point they are openly defending Nazis waving actual Nazi flags at rallies (whoops, I should have said "alt-right free speech advocate," my apologies for being politically incorrect), getting offended at people for begging for their own lives, and getting angry at people for having a problem with treason. Nothing you do is going to make them behave in a way that is more reasonable. We are at least two decades past any possibility of reason.

No amount of appeasement works. It didn't work with the Nazis in the 20^th century and it's not going to work with the Republicans now. Appeasement just tells them that you will give more if they demand more.

- - - Updated - - -

The best thing Hillary could do for the country is just confess to something, anything, and go to prison. GOP wouldn't have anything big enough to distract people with.

You're kidding, right?

Republicans are the party that brought us the "crisis actors" in Sandy Hook, the "deep state" conspiracy to enforce the law, the gay frogs conspiracy, George Soros, pizza-gate, Jade Helm 15, and they have still yet to come up with a goal for the FBI conspiracy against the Branch Davidians, but boy are they certain there was a terrible conspiracy involved there! Aren't conspirators supposed to have some kind of recognizable goal in a conspiracy theory? What exactly was Janet Reno's sinister goal in destroying the Branch Davidians?

Anyway, the Republicans would have no problem cooking up something else.

But...But...wasn't the Branch Davidians about that little Cuban Boy Reno wanted to send back to his dad in Cuba? (I want my smiley faces)

Later,
ElectEngr

My complaint is that the motivation for their Waco conspiracy theories never made any sense.

How did destroying the Branch Davidians get Janet Reno what she wanted with regard to the little Cuban boy? The Republicans' own arguments at the time was that children should always be returned to their biological parents no matter what kind of abuse was likely to be inflicted by said parents. The boy was going back to Cuba no matter what.

 

[Politesse]

How did destroying the Branch Davidians get Janet Reno what she wanted with regard to the little Cuban boy? The Republicans' own arguments at the time was that children should always be returned to their biological parents no matter what kind of abuse was likely to be inflicted by said parents. The boy was going back to Cuba no matter what.

Listen, it's sad, true. But in our political system, there has to be nominatively opposite positions on everything; someone has to be the pro-child-abuse party, or the whole myth of partisan difference could collapse. The Republicans just took one for the team.

 

[Underseer]

How did destroying the Branch Davidians get Janet Reno what she wanted with regard to the little Cuban boy? The Republicans' own arguments at the time was that children should always be returned to their biological parents no matter what kind of abuse was likely to be inflicted by said parents. The boy was going back to Cuba no matter what.

Listen, it's sad, true. But in our political system, there has to be nominatively opposite positions on everything; someone has to be the pro-child-abuse party, or the whole myth of partisan difference could collapse. The Republicans just took one for the team.

Uh, what?

The Republicans are convinced that what happened in Waco, Texas with the Branch Davidians was the result of a terrible and sinister conspiracy run by Bill Clinton and Janet Reno, but in all the conversations I've had with rightists, none of them seem to be able to identify a coherent motive nor explain what exactly the conspiracy was trying to accomplish by killing the Branch Davidians, but they are certainly convinced there was a conspiracy.

I find this particularly odd because conspiracy theories generally exist without a shred of evidence, so the motive of the conspirators is the only thing the whole theory rests on, yet in this case, the people claiming that there was a conspiracy can't come up with a coherent motive.