• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

A day without stupid?

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
38,482
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
I know, right?:

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/417372-ocasio-cortez-hits-back-at-republicans-for-drooling-over-footage-of-her-to

During a livestream earlier in the day, Ocasio-Cortez said Democrats should "work our butts off to make sure that we take back all three chambers of Congress — rather, all three chambers of government: the presidency, the Senate and the House." The branches of government are the executive, judicial and legislative.

Not a zero experience former football coach exactly, but a zero-experience former bartender. It's all good though.

And today on Basic American Governance, we discuss the difference between being elected to the House and the Senate.
 

thebeave

Veteran Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2001
Messages
3,632
Location
Silicon Valley, CA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I know, right?:

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/417372-ocasio-cortez-hits-back-at-republicans-for-drooling-over-footage-of-her-to

During a livestream earlier in the day, Ocasio-Cortez said Democrats should "work our butts off to make sure that we take back all three chambers of Congress — rather, all three chambers of government: the presidency, the Senate and the House." The branches of government are the executive, judicial and legislative.

Not a zero experience former football coach exactly, but a zero-experience former bartender. It's all good though.

And today on Basic American Governance, we discuss the difference between being elected to the House and the Senate.

I thought some smart ass might chime in with that, but I figured they would understand that whether it was the House or Senate was irrelevant to the point I was making. Thanks for not disappointing.
 

Patooka

Contributor
Joined
Apr 5, 2004
Messages
5,341
Location
Sydney
Basic Beliefs
aaa
And today on Basic American Governance, we discuss the difference between being elected to the House and the Senate.

I thought some smart ass might chime in with that, but I figured they would understand that whether it was the House or Senate was irrelevant to the point I was making. Thanks for not disappointing.

Your "point" was bullshit whataboutism trying to compare two different examples. Don't get butt-hurt just because someone points that out.
 

jab

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
1,430
Location
GTA Ontario
Basic Beliefs
non-militant atheist
And today on Basic American Governance, we discuss the difference between being elected to the House and the Senate.

I thought some smart ass might chime in with that, but I figured they would understand that whether it was the House or Senate was irrelevant to the point I was making. Thanks for not disappointing.

Representing a state, and having your vote be one out of 50, or representing a district, and having your vote being one out of hundreds. It's all good though, eh.
However, as someone from a Parliamentary democracy, I consider the structure and power of your Senate to be altogether outre.
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
20,767
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
The small-state delegations wanted per-state representation: the New Jersey Plan.

The large-scale delegations wanted proportional representation: the Virginia Plan.

They decided on the Connecticut Compromise: one proportional chamber, the House, and one per-state chamber, the Senate.

jab, what is the Canadian Senate like? What does it do?
 

Patooka

Contributor
Joined
Apr 5, 2004
Messages
5,341
Location
Sydney
Basic Beliefs
aaa
The small-state delegations wanted per-state representation: the New Jersey Plan.

The large-scale delegations wanted proportional representation: the Virginia Plan.

They decided on the Connecticut Compromise: one proportional chamber, the House, and one per-state chamber, the Senate.

And then the small states fucked the large states a second time with the electoral college, using the same bullshit argument twice.
 

jab

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
1,430
Location
GTA Ontario
Basic Beliefs
non-militant atheist
The small-state delegations wanted per-state representation: the New Jersey Plan.

The large-scale delegations wanted proportional representation: the Virginia Plan.

They decided on the Connecticut Compromise: one proportional chamber, the House, and one per-state chamber, the Senate.

jab, what is the Canadian Senate like? What does it do?

It is appointed by the government, with a retirement age. It can vet (not veto) legislation and send it back to the House of Commons for reconsideration. It cannot block or veto legislation however. Originally modelled on the British House of Lords, it should be abolished. Canadian Senators tend to vote along ideological lines, but don't have to worry about keeping their jobs and paychecks by sucking up to the voters.
The appointments are to fall along lines of regional/ provincial representation, and one of the fairly recent scandals involved Conservative Senators who were appointed to represent small/ rural provinces where they were born and raised but where, it seems, they had not really lived for decades, having pursued media careers in the media centres of big Canadian cities in big provinces.
 

Swammerdami

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
3,305
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
And today on Basic American Governance, we discuss the difference between being elected to the House and the Senate.

I thought some smart ass might chime in with that, but I figured they would understand that whether it was the House or Senate was irrelevant to the point I was making. Thanks for not disappointing.

You were swooshed. By now, AOC understands basic civics much better than most of us. She misspoke -- out of carelessness, not ignorance -- and thebeave seizes on the moment, almost making believe that he knows 6th-grade civics that AOC doesn't. Higgins doubled-down on the sarcasm, and thebeave plays on, not even seeming to understanding that he is the butt of the joke.
 

Patooka

Contributor
Joined
Apr 5, 2004
Messages
5,341
Location
Sydney
Basic Beliefs
aaa
[tweet]1350489243878096904[/tweet]

I swear, the dumb fucks in this administration and its supporters are treating stupid like a department surplus at the end of a fiscal year. If they don't spend up on all the stupid, it doesn't get rolled over to the next budget.
 

Keith&Co.

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2006
Messages
22,444
Location
Far Western Mass
Gender
Here.
Basic Beliefs
I'm here...
Some concede early,
Some concede late,
Some concede humbly,
Some concede GREAT!

Some concede graciously,
Some concede bitter,
Some just have a tantrum
Childishly on Twitter.

But quietly or loudly or
No concession at all,
Regime change is coming,
And you knew it last fall.
 

Rhea

Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
13,557
Location
Recluse
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
I know, right?:

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/417372-ocasio-cortez-hits-back-at-republicans-for-drooling-over-footage-of-her-to

During a livestream earlier in the day, Ocasio-Cortez said Democrats should "work our butts off to make sure that we take back all three chambers of Congress — rather, all three chambers of government: the presidency, the Senate and the House." The branches of government are the executive, judicial and legislative.

Not a zero experience former football coach exactly, but a zero-experience former bartender. It's all good though.


It may feel like an egregious error to not know that the three branches of the government are the Executive, Legislative and Judicial, but I think it is pretty clear that what she is talking about are the three bodies needed for passage of any legislation. It was indeed clumsily said, but I assume that even you, beave, realize there is a need for three distinct bodies needed to be gained to break the deliberate gridlock foisted on the American public by Mitch McConnell.

Well, the rest of us knew what we needed to work our assess off for, anyway. Maybe you thought we needed to work our assess off to get results from the judiciary... but that is not what she meant.

That you took this and decided to toss an insult to her intelligence and consider the sum total of her background to be bartending is as uninformed as you just accused her of being. Why would you think you'd identified a cesspool and decide to publicly jump into it? If she's dumb for saying what she said, why did you decide to copy it?
 

thebeave

Veteran Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2001
Messages
3,632
Location
Silicon Valley, CA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I know, right?:

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/417372-ocasio-cortez-hits-back-at-republicans-for-drooling-over-footage-of-her-to

During a livestream earlier in the day, Ocasio-Cortez said Democrats should "work our butts off to make sure that we take back all three chambers of Congress — rather, all three chambers of government: the presidency, the Senate and the House." The branches of government are the executive, judicial and legislative.

Not a zero experience former football coach exactly, but a zero-experience former bartender. It's all good though.


It may feel like an egregious error to not know that the three branches of the government are the Executive, Legislative and Judicial, but I think it is pretty clear that what she is talking about are the three bodies needed for passage of any legislation. It was indeed clumsily said, but I assume that even you, beave, realize there is a need for three distinct bodies needed to be gained to break the deliberate gridlock foisted on the American public by Mitch McConnell.

Well, the rest of us knew what we needed to work our assess off for, anyway. Maybe you thought we needed to work our assess off to get results from the judiciary... but that is not what she meant.

That you took this and decided to toss an insult to her intelligence and consider the sum total of her background to be bartending is as uninformed as you just accused her of being. Why would you think you'd identified a cesspool and decide to publicly jump into it? If she's dumb for saying what she said, why did you decide to copy it?

Going back a couple of pages, I was merely responding to crazyfingers's statement about Sen. Tuberville, in which he said this about him:

It's stupid but I have to wonder about the stupidity of those who would elect a zero-experience former football coach as a fucking US Senator.

Why didn't you come down on crazyfingers for what he said above? All I was doing was mocking his statement and pointing out a very similar example to his, but on the Democrat side of the aisle. What's good for goose is good for gander and all that. Not only does he demean Tuberville's previous occupational experience, but he demeans the intelligence of those who voted for him, which is kinda uncool. If his voters are stupid, then by the same token, AOC's voters are stupid.
 

Swammerdami

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
3,305
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
Why didn't you come down on crazyfingers for what he said above? All I was doing was mocking his statement and pointing out a very similar example to his, but on the Democrat side of the aisle. What's good for goose is good for gander and all that. Not only does he demean Tuberville's previous occupational experience, but he demeans the intelligence of those who voted for him, which is kinda uncool. If his voters are stupid, then by the same token, AOC's voters are stupid.

Again, you continue to miss the point that Tuberville appears to be significantly more ignorant than Ocasio-Cortez. If you'd clicked the link in the post you responded to, you'd have found this:

In that same interview, Tuberville said his father fought in World War II "to free Europe of socialism," which [checks history book] was not what World War II was a fight against.

Sure, there are plenty of Republicans smarter than plenty of good-spirited Americans. But "counting points" among top politicians will be a losing battle for you. Wasn't it the Republican Chairman of a Committee relevant to climate change that smugly displayed a glass of ice-water as proof that oceans won't rise? :)
 

crazyfingers

Supermagnon
Staff member
Joined
Mar 15, 2001
Messages
4,678
Location
Massachusetts USA
Basic Beliefs
Secular Humanism
Why didn't you come down on crazyfingers for what he said above? All I was doing was mocking his statement and pointing out a very similar example to his, but on the Democrat side of the aisle. What's good for goose is good for gander and all that. Not only does he demean Tuberville's previous occupational experience, but he demeans the intelligence of those who voted for him, which is kinda uncool. If his voters are stupid, then by the same token, AOC's voters are stupid.

Again, you continue to miss the point that Tuberville appears to be significantly more ignorant than Ocasio-Cortez. If you'd clicked the link in the post you responded to, you'd have found this:

In that same interview, Tuberville said his father fought in World War II "to free Europe of socialism," which [checks history book] was not what World War II was a fight against.

Sure, there are plenty of Republicans smarter than plenty of good-spirited Americans. But "counting points" among top politicians will be a losing battle for you. Wasn't it the Republican Chairman of a Committee relevant to climate change that smugly displayed a glass of ice-water as proof that oceans won't rise? :)

Ya. I actually asked each of my kids separately, HS Junior, HS grad gap year, College Freshman to name the branches of government and they got it right. The question is on the US Citizenship test to become a Naturalized citizen. I'd hope that a US Senator would be able to pass the citizenship test but in this case I guess not.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,499
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
It's a bit sad that we don't have his idiotic tweets to laugh at anymore. It certainly brought the whole world together, in hatred of one man.

BTW, I was reading about Clement Atlee, the man who made Great Britain a socialist state and who dismantled the British Empire. What stood out what other prime minsters said about him. When Churchill was asked he said that Clement Atlee was incredibly effective in the War Cabinet during the war. Thatcher said "Of Clement Attlee, however, I was an admirer. He was a serious man and a patriot. Quite contrary to the general tendency of politicians in the 1990s, he was all substance and no show".

This is people talking about their greatest enemies and the person they think did the most harm to the British economy. This is them putting a lid on their hatred and only saying nice things about a person they had no ideological connection to.

Those were the days. Trump was certainly a different kind of president.
 

KeepTalking

Code Monkey
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
4,641
Location
St. Louis Metro East
Basic Beliefs
Atheist, Secular Humanist, Pastifarian, IPUnitard
It's a bit sad that we don't have his idiotic tweets to laugh at anymore. It certainly brought the whole world together, in hatred of one man.

BTW, I was reading about Clement Atlee, the man who made Great Britain a socialist state and who dismantled the British Empire. What stood out what other prime minsters said about him. When Churchill was asked he said that Clement Atlee was incredibly effective in the War Cabinet during the war. Thatcher said "Of Clement Attlee, however, I was an admirer. He was a serious man and a patriot. Quite contrary to the general tendency of politicians in the 1990s, he was all substance and no show".

This is people talking about their greatest enemies and the person they think did the most harm to the British economy. This is them putting a lid on their hatred and only saying nice things about a person they had no ideological connection to.

Those were the days. Trump was certainly a different kind of president.

This got me thinking that maybe part of what is giving Republican lawmakers the courage to stop calling out Trump for being an insurrectionist is his lack of social media presence. If Trump were still on Twitter talking about the election being stolen every day, and continuing to incite his base, perhaps they wouldn't be able to so easily turn away from holding him accountable.
 

Keith&Co.

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2006
Messages
22,444
Location
Far Western Mass
Gender
Here.
Basic Beliefs
I'm here...
It's a bit sad that we don't have his idiotic tweets to laugh at anymore. It certainly brought the whole world together, in hatred of one man.

BTW, I was reading about Clement Atlee, the man who made Great Britain a socialist state and who dismantled the British Empire. What stood out what other prime minsters said about him. When Churchill was asked he said that Clement Atlee was incredibly effective in the War Cabinet during the war. Thatcher said "Of Clement Attlee, however, I was an admirer. He was a serious man and a patriot. Quite contrary to the general tendency of politicians in the 1990s, he was all substance and no show".

This is people talking about their greatest enemies and the person they think did the most harm to the British economy. This is them putting a lid on their hatred and only saying nice things about a person they had no ideological connection to.

Those were the days. Trump was certainly a different kind of president.

This got me thinking that maybe part of what is giving Republican lawmakers the courage to stop calling out Trump for being an insurrectionist is his lack of social media presence. If Trump were still on Twitter talking about the election being stolen every day, and continuing to incite his base, perhaps they wouldn't be able to so easily turn away from holding him accountable.
Meh. They're still meeting with him. Traveling to meet with him.
Parroting his lies. Or at least not denouncing them.
They're still very much aware that he's got a following and when he finds a really good way to connect to them, he'll be a power.
They're scared shitless he'll put them on his hit list of People To Punish for either embarrassing him or not sufficiently working to protect him from embarrassment. I doubt a Twitter presence would make any difference.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
38,482
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
It's a bit sad that we don't have his idiotic tweets to laugh at anymore. It certainly brought the whole world together, in hatred of one man.

BTW, I was reading about Clement Atlee, the man who made Great Britain a socialist state and who dismantled the British Empire. What stood out what other prime minsters said about him. When Churchill was asked he said that Clement Atlee was incredibly effective in the War Cabinet during the war. Thatcher said "Of Clement Attlee, however, I was an admirer. He was a serious man and a patriot. Quite contrary to the general tendency of politicians in the 1990s, he was all substance and no show".

This is people talking about their greatest enemies and the person they think did the most harm to the British economy. This is them putting a lid on their hatred and only saying nice things about a person they had no ideological connection to.

Those were the days. Trump was certainly a different kind of president.

This got me thinking that maybe part of what is giving Republican lawmakers the courage to stop calling out Trump for being an insurrectionist is his lack of social media presence. If Trump were still on Twitter talking about the election being stolen every day, and continuing to incite his base, perhaps they wouldn't be able to so easily turn away from holding him accountable.
Well, they didn't hold Trump accountable for illegal tariffs that they didn't even support, when he tried to use hundreds of millions of dollars to get Ukrainian President to announce a fake investigation into Biden, or raise a peep when the audio of the call between Trump and the GA SoS about finding him votes, I don't think that was going to change, because the GOP apparently had no end to their mercy on Trump's violations of the law.
 

James Brown

Veteran Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2005
Messages
3,621
Location
Texas
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic Atheist
It occurs to me that if I wanted to start a wildfire in California...

And if I had the choice between launching laser satellites into space that self-identify as Jewish...

Or tossing a lit cigarette out a car window...

I'm pretty sure I'd choose the cigarette option.

That way I still have $100 billion or so in walking-around money.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
33,080
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
It occurs to me that if I wanted to start a wildfire in California...

And if I had the choice between launching laser satellites into space that self-identify as Jewish...

Or tossing a lit cigarette out a car window...

I'm pretty sure I'd choose the cigarette option.

That way I still have $100 billion or so in walking-around money.

She probably saw Geostorm and imagined it was George Soros playing the Gerard Butler part.
 

Shadowy Man

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2002
Messages
3,592
Location
West Coast
Basic Beliefs
Rational Pragmatism
It occurs to me that if I wanted to start a wildfire in California...

And if I had the choice between launching laser satellites into space that self-identify as Jewish...

Or tossing a lit cigarette out a car window...

I'm pretty sure I'd choose the cigarette option.

That way I still have $100 billion or so in walking-around money.

Oh, and make sure to do it under cover of a lightning storm. You know, the kind of lightning that typically causes forest fires.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
28,858
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
It's a bit sad that we don't have his idiotic tweets to laugh at anymore. It certainly brought the whole world together, in hatred of one man.

BTW, I was reading about Clement Atlee, the man who made Great Britain a socialist state and who dismantled the British Empire. What stood out what other prime minsters said about him. When Churchill was asked he said that Clement Atlee was incredibly effective in the War Cabinet during the war. Thatcher said "Of Clement Attlee, however, I was an admirer. He was a serious man and a patriot. Quite contrary to the general tendency of politicians in the 1990s, he was all substance and no show".

This is people talking about their greatest enemies and the person they think did the most harm to the British economy. This is them putting a lid on their hatred and only saying nice things about a person they had no ideological connection to.

Those were the days. Trump was certainly a different kind of president.

To be fair, it's difficult not to admire Atlee. He was a deadset legend.
 

Angry Floof

Tricksy Leftits
Staff member
Joined
Jul 17, 2008
Messages
14,528
Location
Sector 001
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
It occurs to me that if I wanted to start a wildfire in California...

And if I had the choice between launching laser satellites into space that self-identify as Jewish...

Or tossing a lit cigarette out a car window...

I'm pretty sure I'd choose the cigarette option.

That way I still have $100 billion or so in walking-around money.

But the Death Star of David is way cooler.
 

Keith&Co.

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2006
Messages
22,444
Location
Far Western Mass
Gender
Here.
Basic Beliefs
I'm here...
It occurs to me that if I wanted to start a wildfire in California...

And if I had the choice between launching laser satellites into space that self-identify as Jewish...

Or tossing a lit cigarette out a car window...

I'm pretty sure I'd choose the cigarette option.

That way I still have $100 billion or so in walking-around money.

But the Death Star of David is way cooler.
Cue Mel Brooks singing "Jews in Space..."
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
28,858
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
It occurs to me that if I wanted to start a wildfire in California...

And if I had the choice between launching laser satellites into space that self-identify as Jewish...

Or tossing a lit cigarette out a car window...

I'm pretty sure I'd choose the cigarette option.

That way I still have $100 billion or so in walking-around money.

But the Death Star of David is way cooler.

You have a point.

OK, six points.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
21,841
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
It occurs to me that if I wanted to start a wildfire in California...

And if I had the choice between launching laser satellites into space that self-identify as Jewish...

Or tossing a lit cigarette out a car window...

I'm pretty sure I'd choose the cigarette option.

That way I still have $100 billion or so in walking-around money.

But the Death Star of David is way cooler.

You have a point.

OK, six points.

Seven, including hers.
 

Keith&Co.

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2006
Messages
22,444
Location
Far Western Mass
Gender
Here.
Basic Beliefs
I'm here...
So, Trump belongs to the Screen Actor's Guild. Have to, to speak lines in a movie.

SAG-AFTRA's Disciplinary board move to review his conduct in inciting yyhe Jan Sixers, possibly to kick him out of the union.

Trump quit.
I write to you today regarding the so-called Disciplinary Committee hearing aimed at revoking my union membership. Who cares!

While I’m not familiar with your work, I’m very proud of my work on movies such as Home Alone 2, Zoolander and Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps; and television shows including The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, Saturday Night Live, and of course, one of the most successful shows in television history, The Apprentice – to name just a few!

I’ve also greatly helped the cable news television business (said to be a dying platform with not much time left until I got involved in politics), and created thousands of jobs at networks such as MSDNC and Fake News CNN, among many others.

Which brings me to your blatant attempt at free media attention to distract from your dismal record as a union. Your organization has done little for its members, and nothing for me – besides collecting dues and promoting dangerous un-American policies and ideas – as evident by your massive unemployment rates and lawsuits from celebrated actors, who even recorded a video asking, “Why isn’t the union fighting for me?”

These, however, are policy failures. Your disciplinary failures are even more egregious.

I no longer wish to be associated with your union. As such, this letter is to inform you of my immediate resignation from SAG-AFTRA. You have done nothing for me.

SAG replied
 

Keith&Co.

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2006
Messages
22,444
Location
Far Western Mass
Gender
Here.
Basic Beliefs
I'm here...
Where the fuq does Bonespurs get his lawyers?

The NYT published an opinion article on Trump, based on the Muelker investigation, saying Florida Man had a 'quid pro quo' arrangement with the Russians in 2016, that they'd help him win, he'd do Russia+ governing.. The Bonespurs re-election campaign sued the NYT for defamation, animosity towards the campaign on the part of the Times
A judge just tossed the case.

It's an opinion, so not actionable, the language used was not defamatory, and, by the way,

The article was about Florida Man. But the plaintiff listed in the lawsuit was The Re-election Campaign, not the man. So even if there had been a case hrre, it wasn't their case.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...0PADegQICxAB&usg=AOvVaw0EPPXfIKCq7VdXfK1V53On
 

Shadowy Man

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2002
Messages
3,592
Location
West Coast
Basic Beliefs
Rational Pragmatism
Where the fuq does Bonespurs get his lawyers?

The NYT published an opinion article on Trump, based on the Muelker investigation, saying Florida Man had a 'quid pro quo' arrangement with the Russians in 2016, that they'd help him win, he'd do Russia+ governing.. The Bonespurs re-election campaign sued the NYT for defamation, animosity towards the campaign on the part of the Times
A judge just tossed the case.

It's an opinion, so not actionable, the language used was not defamatory, and, by the way,

The article was about Florida Man. But the plaintiff listed in the lawsuit was The Re-election Campaign, not the man. So even if there had been a case hrre, it wasn't their case.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...0PADegQICxAB&usg=AOvVaw0EPPXfIKCq7VdXfK1V53On
But It would mean he could spend his political donations on it instead of his personal money.
 

Swammerdami

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
3,305
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
Meh. They're still meeting with him. Traveling to meet with him.
Parroting his lies. Or at least not denouncing them.
They're still very much aware that he's got a following and when he finds a really good way to connect to them, he'll be a power.
They're scared shitless he'll put them on his hit list of People To Punish for either embarrassing him or not sufficiently working to protect him from embarrassment. I doubt a Twitter presence would make any difference.

Given the chance to show any virtuous qualities — integrity, compassion, respect for their party, constituents or country, hope for future, concern for the unity and prosperity of the U.S., or even simple rationality — the Republicans have been tried and found wholly wanting.

Shame!

Shame not just on the liars, crooks and morons who are hanging on to a crime family for personal profit; But also Shame on the few Republican leaders who are not licking the Orange Ass, but still unwilling to abandon a party that has no convictions left but criminality and treason.
 

Ford

Contributor
Joined
Nov 30, 2010
Messages
6,117
Location
'Merica
Basic Beliefs
Godless Heathen
Meh. They're still meeting with him. Traveling to meet with him.
Parroting his lies. Or at least not denouncing them.
They're still very much aware that he's got a following and when he finds a really good way to connect to them, he'll be a power.
They're scared shitless he'll put them on his hit list of People To Punish for either embarrassing him or not sufficiently working to protect him from embarrassment. I doubt a Twitter presence would make any difference.

Given the chance to show any virtuous qualities — integrity, compassion, respect for their party, constituents or country, hope for future, concern for the unity and prosperity of the U.S., or even simple rationality — the Republicans have been tried and found wholly wanting.

Shame!

They don't have any of that. Integrity, compassion, respect, shame...especially not the shame.

Remember, Ted "Cancun" Cruz was brutally lambasted by Trump (who also insulted his wife) when he was a candidate in the primaries, but when Trump won the nomination Cruz tried real hard to be Trump's number one lap dog. A job which eventually went to Lindsey Graham, who had spent the time before the nomination calling Trump every name in the book.

And as Keith pointed out, part of this is fear. Look, most of these people know full well that Trump's claim of election fraud is completely false. Yet they're echoing his claims and kissing the ring because if he turns on them, their political careers are in danger, and perhaps even their lives. When riled up, it took Trump supporters mere hours to go from "Mike Pence is a great VP" to "let's hang that traitorous bastard Mike Pence." Mitt Romney had to run from them, and if Trump whips them up again, some of them will contemplate violence. At the very least anyone who turns on Trump faces a primary from a QAnon Caucus challenger, and given the level of support Trump has among the GOP base, it would work.

They're also caught between a rock and a hard place. They can't turn on Trump, but they also know that following him is a dead end. He got beat handily by the safest, most establishment candidate the Democrats could offer, he embarrassed himself on the way out of office, and his chances for coming back and being anything but a failure in 2024 are slim and none, but they hung that albatross on their own necks.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
33,080
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
How Trump Steered Supporters Into Unwitting Donations

Stacy Blatt was in hospice care last September listening to Rush Limbaugh’s dire warnings about how badly Donald J. Trump’s campaign needed money when he went online and chipped in everything he could: $500.

It was a big sum for a 63-year-old battling cancer and living in Kansas City on less than $1,000 per month. But that single contribution — federal records show it was his first ever — quickly multiplied. Another $500 was withdrawn the next day, then $500 the next week and every week through mid-October, without his knowledge — until Mr. Blatt’s bank account had been depleted and frozen. When his utility and rent payments bounced, he called his brother, Russell, for help.

What the Blatts soon discovered was $3,000 in withdrawals by the Trump campaign in less than 30 days. They called their bank and said they thought they were victims of fraud.

“It felt,” Russell said, “like it was a scam.”

Contributors had to wade through a fine-print disclaimer and manually uncheck a box to opt out.

As the election neared, the Trump team made that disclaimer increasingly opaque, an investigation by The New York Times showed. It introduced a second prechecked box, known internally as a “money bomb,” that doubled a person’s contribution. Eventually its solicitations featured lines of text in bold and capital letters that overwhelmed the opt-out language.

The tactic ensnared scores of unsuspecting Trump loyalists — retirees, military veterans, nurses and even experienced political operatives. Soon, banks and credit card companies were inundated with fraud complaints from the president’s own supporters about donations they had not intended to make, sometimes for thousands of dollars.

“Bandits!” said Victor Amelino, a 78-year-old Californian, who made a $990 online donation to Mr. Trump in early September via WinRed. It recurred seven more times — adding up to almost $8,000. “I’m retired. I can’t afford to pay all that damn money.”
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
5,062
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
Jebus! Scamming your own supporters.

At least its in keeping with his character

Trump: "I don't need campaign contributions, because I'm really, really rich."

Also Trump: "You don't need your life savings, because I'm really, really broke."

Does anybody else remember Trump's big claims about being so rich he didn't need donations? I sure do. Just another hu-u-ge Trump lie, obviously.
Tom
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,499
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Trump: "I don't need campaign contributions, because I'm really, really rich."

Also Trump: "You don't need your life savings, because I'm really, really broke."

Does anybody else remember Trump's big claims about being so rich he didn't need donations? I sure do. Just another hu-u-ge Trump lie, obviously.
Tom

But he's the greatest liar. Nobody is as good liar as him. He's got the best people
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
21,841
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
Trump: "I don't need campaign contributions, because I'm really, really rich."

Also Trump: "You don't need your life savings, because I'm really, really broke."

Does anybody else remember Trump's big claims about being so rich he didn't need donations? I sure do. Just another hu-u-ge Trump lie, obviously.
Tom

But he's the greatest liar. Nobody is as good liar as him. He's got the best people

And the biggest brain. A very stable genius who doesn't "do" virtue signaling.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
38,482
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Top Bottom