Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Why do liberals think some Trump supporters are stupid?

Page 10 of 10 [ 158 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

Previous topic | Next topic

Karamazov
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2012
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,979
Location: Rural England

06 Jun 2020, 3:37 pm

sly279 wrote:
Karamazov wrote:
Yeah, I’m much less “chatty” IRL than I am here, mainly due to the forum setup where you can just hit the quote button and then spend ten, twenty, thirty minutes discovering your own thoughts as you type and retype the same three paragraphs to get the least worst approximation of sense and clarity.

Unless it’s the three(?) occasions where I’ll own I’ve been “triggered” and blasted off a barrage of semi-incoherent half formed sentences wreathed in flame :roll:

There’s at least one post somewhere here that I spent over an hour and a half typing: with footnotes! :lol: No chance to do that in a face to face conversation, monosyllabic grunts and silence are my norm there.


Once I know someone I’m more chatty in person. My preferred communication tier systems is :in person>texting>phone>video chat.

Yeah, if it’s someone I’ve known for a while, and see regularly, and feel safe around, I can open up and talk freely face to face on some topics (but not all! :lol: )

Think my preferred tier would be letter>email>text>in person>phone>video chat.
Hah! Just did a tier list! First time ever :D / 8O



RetroGamer87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,196
Location: Adelaide, Australia

06 Jun 2020, 9:04 pm

kraftiekortie wrote:
They can’t remove a leader AFTER he wins.

Not in your country. You'd be surprised by how common it is down under.


_________________
The days are long, but the years are short


kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

06 Jun 2020, 9:20 pm

I suppose your parliament can vote on, and enact, a “vote of no confidence.”



Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

06 Jun 2020, 10:00 pm

Out of curiosity, with the precedent set by the Democrats with impeachment (which appearead to have been based upon hearsay and belief rather than first-hand knowledge\evidence), is it theoretically possible for the Republicans (if they win the house (and Senate for removal)) to "retaliate" and impeach (and potentially remove) Mr Biden over his son\Ukraine, or does the "offence" warranting Impeachment need to occur within the current "term"\role (my understanding is it refers to using a person's position, not specifying that this must be the same position in which both the action and the impeachamanet occur)?

Having "lowered the bar" on what is impeacable may turn out to be an "own goal" for the Democrats, even so, as now every candidate (on either side) will be at risk from a house with a majority from the opposing party, and the house's "understanding" of what a "high crime or misdemeanour" may be, making the leader of the "executive branch" subservient (to a degree) to one of the parts of the legislative branch ("do what we want or we'll impeach you") rather than equal.



Bradleigh
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 May 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,669
Location: Brisbane, Australia

06 Jun 2020, 10:47 pm

Brictoria wrote:
Having "lowered the bar" on what is impeacable may turn out to be an "own goal" for the Democrats, even so, as now every candidate (on either side) will be at risk from a house with a majority from the opposing party, and the house's "understanding" of what a "high crime or misdemeanour" may be, making the leader of the "executive branch" subservient (to a degree) to one of the parts of the legislative branch ("do what we want or we'll impeach you") rather than equal.


The bar was not lowered on what is impeachable, the bar was lowered on being able to do anything about the crimes. That members of the same party could be the ones making the decision, and control the narrative so much that they did not want any witnesses at all. And yet people were dumb enough to actually think there was no evidence. He straight out said "I would like you to do us a favor though" when asked about support other parts of the government had organized, and that favor was investigating his political opponent. How is there any way to see that as anything but ignorance, willing or not, to buy the argument that there was nothing wrong?


_________________
Through dream I travel, at lantern's call
To consume the flames of a kingdom's fall


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

07 Jun 2020, 1:15 am

Karamazov wrote:
Yeah, I’m much less “chatty” IRL than I am here, mainly due to the forum setup where you can just hit the quote button and then spend ten, twenty, thirty minutes discovering your own thoughts as you type and retype the same three paragraphs to get the least worst approximation of sense and clarity.

Unless it’s the three(?) occasions where I’ll own I’ve been “triggered” and blasted off a barrage of semi-incoherent half formed sentences wreathed in flame :roll:

There’s at least one post somewhere here that I spent over an hour and a half typing: with footnotes! :lol: No chance to do that in a face to face conversation, monosyllabic grunts and silence are my norm there.


My main reason for posting is self-improvement and self-discovery/enlightenment.
And, of course, I like to exercise my humorous side.

I also like to analyse people. 8)

:scratch: Why are we talking about this?
Ahhh,
That's right,
funeralxempire started it.
I *really* do want what he is smoking. :mrgreen:



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

07 Jun 2020, 1:18 am

RetroGamer87 wrote:
kraftiekortie wrote:
They can’t remove a leader AFTER he wins.

Not in your country. You'd be surprised by how common it is down under.


Not anymore.
The Labor Party needs a majority of 70% to change a leader these days.
The same goes for the Liberal Party, I believe, though I don't know the percentage of discontent.



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

07 Jun 2020, 1:25 am

RetroGamer87 wrote:
Pepe wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
Pepe wrote:
I don't think Trump is a good President.
I don't think Biden would be either.

So how come the plan is for the Dems to defeat Trump using their weakest candidate. That doesn't seem like a good plan.


I don't think it is a good plan either.
But I have heard it suggested that Biden will be replaced if the Democrats win. <shrug>


I know that a party removing their own leader is an Australian tradition but I don't think the American system allows for that.


I'm sure if Biden drops off the perch, they would install the vice-President.
That is what he/she is there for.
Who knows, maybe someone pushes him off. 8O :mrgreen:

But it doesn't have to be that drastic, I imagine.
It could be a health concern. <shrug>

As I said,
It was something I heard the media talk about.

BTW,
Usually, when I talk about a "Source",
It means I am non-committal to what has been said. :wink:



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

07 Jun 2020, 1:27 am

kraftiekortie wrote:
They can’t remove a leader AFTER he wins.


Even if he is dead?

Oh, right.
They did a "Bernie" with Reagan. :mrgreen:



Last edited by Pepe on 07 Jun 2020, 1:46 am, edited 1 time in total.

Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

07 Jun 2020, 1:29 am

MaxE wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
Pepe wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
Pepe wrote:
I don't think Trump is a good President.
I don't think Biden would be either.

So how come the plan is for the Dems to defeat Trump using their weakest candidate. That doesn't seem like a good plan.


I don't think it is a good plan either.
But I have heard it suggested that Biden will be replaced if the Democrats win. <shrug>


I know that a party removing their own leader is an Australian tradition but I don't think the American system allows for that.

America does not have a Parliamentary system. I first encountered the concept of a politician being "ousted" when my mother's Canadian cousin talked about it. I can also recall the unusual (to me) way she pronounced the word "ousted".

However there is no law to prevent members of Biden's party from pressuring him to resign in which case the Vice President would automatically become President. This happened in 1974. I have absolutely no idea who the Vice President will be though. The best choice (on paper) would seem to be Stacey Abrams although to me she seems to have zero "charisma" which has been inordinately important to Americans ever since the very charismatic sex addict John F. Kennedy was elected President in 1960.


Yup.

BTW,
Someone mentioned the Democrats are going to tear up the tariffs against china.
If that is the case, I want Trump to win.
Easy peasy. :mrgreen:



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

07 Jun 2020, 1:46 am

kraftiekortie wrote:
I suppose your parliament can vote on, and enact, a “vote of no confidence.”


In Australia the party can hold a parliamentary ballot during the prime minister's term and if there's no confidence they can hold a popularity contest and push forward another leader despite that person not being tested by an electoral ballot.

The argument for this being democratic is that elected ministers who hold the ballot are elected by their constituents so therefore their decision on a new leader during a term is an election by proxy.



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,590
Location: Right over your left shoulder

07 Jun 2020, 7:52 am

envirozentinel wrote:
"KK yes i think the plant manager finds him quite talented and has no reason to fire him as long as he does the work he's paid for in between...
rap is just as dependent on clever wording as a Gilbert and Sullivan opera!


Gilbert and Sullivan are great. Yet another thing I owe The Simpsons a thank you for introducing me to.



sly279 wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Sanders actually appeals to some poor deplorables because they know he still gives a s**t about them and means it more than Trump, no matter how much they disagree with him on some issues.

Sanders doesn’t care about the poor. He just knew he needed them to win so he tries to pander to us. I for one didn’t fall for it. He’s a big hypocrite



He's made an entire career of arguing on behalf of working class people like his own family. Perhaps you don't trust him, but that might be more due to your kool-aid consumption than anything substantial.


_________________
There's no such thing as a free market.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.


RetroGamer87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,196
Location: Adelaide, Australia

07 Jun 2020, 7:14 pm

Pepe wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
Pepe wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
Pepe wrote:
I don't think Trump is a good President.
I don't think Biden would be either.

So how come the plan is for the Dems to defeat Trump using their weakest candidate. That doesn't seem like a good plan.


I don't think it is a good plan either.
But I have heard it suggested that Biden will be replaced if the Democrats win. <shrug>


I know that a party removing their own leader is an Australian tradition but I don't think the American system allows for that.


I'm sure if Biden drops off the perch, they would install the vice-President.
That is what he/she is there for.
Who knows, maybe someone pushes him off. 8O :mrgreen:

But it doesn't have to be that drastic, I imagine.
It could be a health concern. <shrug>

As I said,
It was something I heard the media talk about.

BTW,
Usually, when I talk about a "Source",
It means I am non-committal to what has been said. :wink:

So the American system relies on assassination. Sure they've tried it four times already. The flaw in this system is that it doesn't pay to make martyers out of your enemies.


_________________
The days are long, but the years are short


funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,590
Location: Right over your left shoulder

07 Jun 2020, 7:15 pm

RetroGamer87 wrote:
So the American system relies on assassination. Sure they've tried it four times already. The flaw in this system is that it doesn't pay to make martyers out of your enemies.


Technically impeachment and the 25th exist for that purpose, but since impeachment is broken it does seem like '2nd Amendment solutions' might be the unofficially encouraged way.


_________________
There's no such thing as a free market.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.