|
Post by Hulkster2001 on Mar 3, 2020 9:38:15 GMT -5
I don’t want to be overconfident and say that this’ll be a Trump landslide, but I don’t see Trump losing come November. Bernie’s adoration for actual dictators or Biden’s constant gaffes (150 million gun deaths since 2007!?) will be Trump’s main point of attack if they become the nominee, and he hits pretty hard when he does attack. I don’t see Pocahontas getting the nominee. She’s extremely unlikeable and has a habit of playing the race and gender card anytime she can. Bloomberg just seems to be there for a lol rather than a serious interest in becoming president. When he doesn’t get the nominee, it’ll be interesting to see if the winner will accept his money if he chooses to donate. Has Bernie given a price tag yet of how much his policies will cost? It’s obviously going to cost trillions, tens of trillions. Even if the democrats take the house and senate later this year, I don’t see them allocating that much money. He’s basically campaigning on ideas that aren’t achievable. Quick note, let’s keep this civil everyone. It is possible to disagree with someone without having a go at them. *asks to keep it civil* *uses a stupid nickname* He’s just channeling the President! (But seriously it’s going to be hilarious if Warren is the nominee because Trump will just bombard her with all the Indian nicknames he can come up with)
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Mar 3, 2020 10:07:42 GMT -5
If he was the last good one then that's just sad. I mean not having another good President in 150+ years oof. Oh no, that’s just to disprove your claim that all presidents are bad, last great one is probably Reagan. Lincoln did suspend Habeas Corpus and said if he could rejoin the states without freeing black people he'd do it. He even wanted to send slaves to other countries to get them out of here. He massacred his fair share of Natives. He wasn't a saint, he just happened to do something good in the end but the good outweighs the bad.
|
|
|
Post by CM Poor on Mar 3, 2020 10:12:28 GMT -5
The best way to handle folks who can't even engage in civic discourse without lowering themselves to the depths required to refer to a candidate, in earnest, with such an off-color nickname is to simply refuse to engage them. It's a tell-tale sign of an inability to rise above the mud and engage in a discussion of ideas. People who can't adhere to a baseline modicum of decency should be treated like they're not even at the table. Oh no, that’s just to disprove your claim that all presidents are bad, last great one is probably Reagan. Lincoln did suspend Habeas Corpus and said if he could rejoin the states without freeing black people he'd do it. He even wanted to send slaves to other countries to get them out of here. He massacred his fair share of Natives. He wasn't a saint, he just happened to do something good in the end but the good outweighs the bad. Yep. Party game for dorks: "Tell Me Your Favorite President, and I'll Tell You Something Horrible Enacted on Their Watch"
|
|
|
Post by RSCTom on Mar 3, 2020 10:20:39 GMT -5
The best way to handle folks who can't even engage in civic discourse without lowering themselves to the depths required to refer to a candidate, in earnest, with such an off-color nickname is to simply refuse to engage them. It's a tell-tale sign of an inability to rise above the mud and engage in a discussion of ideas. People who can't adhere to a baseline modicum of decency should be treated like they're not even at the table. SHOULD be, but unfortunately, they are at the table at the moment. I can agree with the idea that we just don't treat them as part of the conversation but it's clear with who is in office and where the country is at that's an impossibility at the moment, so it's tough. One direction is to argue of course but the only other solution I can think of is gently having a conversation as to why it's so outlandish. But generally people in that position feel like they're being spoken down to which of course we don't want to be doing, so it's tricky. Ugh. I don't know if I'm going to make it through November.
|
|
|
Post by CM Poor on Mar 3, 2020 10:30:16 GMT -5
The best way to handle folks who can't even engage in civic discourse without lowering themselves to the depths required to refer to a candidate, in earnest, with such an off-color nickname is to simply refuse to engage them. It's a tell-tale sign of an inability to rise above the mud and engage in a discussion of ideas. People who can't adhere to a baseline modicum of decency should be treated like they're not even at the table. SHOULD be, but unfortunately, they are at the table at the moment. I can agree with the idea that we just don't treat them as part of the conversation but it's clear with who is in office and where the country is at that's an impossibility at the moment, so it's tough. One direction is to argue of course but the only other solution I can think of is gently having a conversation as to why it's so outlandish. But generally people in that position feel like they're being spoken down to which of course we don't want to be doing, so it's tricky. Ugh. I don't know if I'm going to make it through November. I don't much care who's in office when it comes to discourse among commoners. If someone comes to the table when I'm engaged in the conversation, and they can't conduct themselves in a manner that adheres to basic decency and respect, then they relinquish the right to an expectancy of such in return. Such treatment doesn't have to be returned in equal measure - i.e., I'm not going to begin lowering myself to that level of behavior - but I'm certainly not going to look upon them as an equal voice in the conversation. If that's what they want, they can come back when they wish to stand on equal footing. It's not some new, foreign concept - most of us learned this in kindergarten. I think a lot of people lose sight of the fact that this isn't competitive sports. Bravado, posturing, and chest puffing accomplish nothing here. Talk sh*t when your team makes the Super Bowl. Let's pretend the stakes carry some weight here.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkster2001 on Mar 3, 2020 10:36:31 GMT -5
Yep. Party game for dorks: "Tell Me Your Favorite President, and I'll Tell You Something Horrible Enacted on Their Watch" Fun for the whole family! Especially during Thanksgiving dinner!
|
|
|
Post by Grumpyoldman on Mar 3, 2020 10:48:33 GMT -5
I wonder if things would be run differently if a scientist was elected. Most occupations held by former presidents were lawyers, Army officers, senators, governors, etc.
|
|
|
Post by bad guy™ on Mar 3, 2020 12:32:37 GMT -5
I wonder if things would be run differently if a scientist was elected. Most occupations held by former presidents were lawyers, Army officers, senators, governors, etc. Hoover was. He was the second worst ever behind Buchanan.
|
|
|
Post by CM Poor on Mar 3, 2020 13:55:49 GMT -5
I wonder if things would be run differently if a scientist was elected. Most occupations held by former presidents were lawyers, Army officers, senators, governors, etc. Hoover was. He was the second worst ever behind Buchanan. Mining geology at the turn of the 1900s probably isn't comparable to how a scientific scholar might approach the presidency in 2020, either. We need another President with the humility of a peanut farmer.
|
|
|
Post by CM Poor on Mar 3, 2020 14:04:44 GMT -5
As an aside, if anyone looking to dip their toes into a little Presidential history, Lily Cunningham with the Washington Post did an excellent podcast back in 2016 during the lead up to the election that year, detailing each U.S. President from a relatable stance rather than a strictly political one (a frequent question she'd ask her guests, usually scholars on specific Presidents, was what it would be like to go on a blind date with each of them). It's 44 episodes, detailing each Chief of State from Washington through Trump, and it's a pretty easy listen. I think only a handful of episodes exceed one hour. It led me down the rabbit hole of more than a few former Presidents and kick started a frustrating collection of figurines that stopped being produced almost 20 years prior to my being born.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkster2001 on Mar 3, 2020 14:06:43 GMT -5
We need another President with the humility of a peanut farmer. Hostages would like to disagree
|
|
|
Post by johnnyb on Mar 3, 2020 14:08:48 GMT -5
There is zero percent chance that this thread survives until November for very obvious reasons.
I'll just say that Democrats have fought harder against Bernie in the last 72 hours than they ever have against Trump, and if they force Biden through, he'll get absolutely annihilated by Trump in the general.
|
|
|
Post by CM Poor on Mar 3, 2020 14:21:25 GMT -5
We need another President with the humility of a peanut farmer. Hostages would like to disagree I'm not talking in an executive fashion. You'd be hard pressed to find many who'd agree that Jimmy wasn't less than stellar. I'm just tired of being yelled at. I think that somewhere between "The Peanut Brigade" and "When you're a star, they let you do it", the truth lies.
|
|
|
Post by rkfastmo on Mar 3, 2020 14:41:45 GMT -5
There is zero percent chance that this thread survives until November for very obvious reasons. I'll just say that Democrats have fought harder against Bernie in the last 72 hours than they ever have against Trump, and if they force Biden through, he'll get absolutely annihilated by Trump in the general. Doesn't really matter if it's Sanders or Biden. Both could leave massive holes in the Dem electorate, and could very well lose the "lesser of two evils" crowd again. Both are easy memeable targets. And both would have Big Billy and Senate GOP gleefully conducting public inquiries to influence the news cycle all the way up to November.
|
|
|
Post by Grumpyoldman on Mar 3, 2020 15:44:23 GMT -5
We need another President with the humility of a peanut farmer. Hostages would like to disagree Ouch. But I get it
|
|
|
Post by bad guy™ on Mar 3, 2020 15:51:57 GMT -5
Hoover was. He was the second worst ever behind Buchanan. Mining geology at the turn of the 1900s probably isn't comparable to how a scientific scholar might approach the presidency in 2020, either. We need another President with the humility of a peanut farmer. Oh, I completely agree with you. And with Trump's hacking away at everything from science education for the youth, up to axing exploratory scientific funding to research groups, the CDC, among others, apparently a lot of scientists have run for office in the last couple of years. Now, sadly they haven't been successful en masse, but Senator Rosan and Congresswoman Houlahan are at least names I recognize. Hell, Congresswoman Luria is a nuclear engineer, veteran, and environmentalist. Why don't they get any public notice?
|
|
|
Post by TheLastDude on Mar 3, 2020 16:37:28 GMT -5
I wonder if things would be run differently if a scientist was elected. Most occupations held by former presidents were lawyers, Army officers, senators, governors, etc. Hoover was. He was the second worst ever behind Buchanan. I mean, I'll give you Jimmy B for sure, and Hoover was definitely pretty terrible...but man...Coolidge, Andrew Johnson, Pierce...I don't know that I can put Hoover as high as second worst. Maybe we can just lump them all together in one big turd ball and call it Buchooverlidgesonpie.
|
|
|
Post by CM Poor on Mar 3, 2020 16:49:20 GMT -5
Mining geology at the turn of the 1900s probably isn't comparable to how a scientific scholar might approach the presidency in 2020, either. We need another President with the humility of a peanut farmer. Oh, I completely agree with you. And with Trump's hacking away at everything from science education for the youth, up to axing exploratory scientific funding to research groups, the CDC, among others, apparently a lot of scientists have run for office in the last couple of years. Now, sadly they haven't been successful en masse, but Senator Rosan and Congresswoman Houlahan are at least names I recognize. Hell, Congresswoman Luria is a nuclear engineer, veteran, and environmentalist. Why don't they get any public notice?Because their scientific exploits are either secondary or military in nature. An honest to goodness "scientist", who's all but dedicated their life to the constant pursuit of research and knowledge, isn't running for public office - likely because the very nature of such a pursuit would be at complete odds with what they've chosen to swear their life's work to. Hoover was. He was the second worst ever behind Buchanan. I mean, I'll give you Jimmy B for sure, and Hoover was definitely pretty terrible...but man...Coolidge, Andrew Johnson, Pierce...I don't know that I can put Hoover as high as second worst. Maybe we can just lump them all together in one big turd ball and call it Buchooverlidgesonpie. Every day I have to live with the fact that the greatest President my state has to offer is a fictional character.
|
|
|
Post by TheLastDude on Mar 3, 2020 17:42:32 GMT -5
Oh, I completely agree with you. And with Trump's hacking away at everything from science education for the youth, up to axing exploratory scientific funding to research groups, the CDC, among others, apparently a lot of scientists have run for office in the last couple of years. Now, sadly they haven't been successful en masse, but Senator Rosan and Congresswoman Houlahan are at least names I recognize. Hell, Congresswoman Luria is a nuclear engineer, veteran, and environmentalist. Why don't they get any public notice?Because their scientific exploits are either secondary or military in nature. An honest to goodness "scientist", who's all but dedicated their life to the constant pursuit of research and knowledge, isn't running for public office - likely because the very nature of such a pursuit would be at complete odds with what they've chosen to swear their life's work to. I mean, I'll give you Jimmy B for sure, and Hoover was definitely pretty terrible...but man...Coolidge, Andrew Johnson, Pierce...I don't know that I can put Hoover as high as second worst. Maybe we can just lump them all together in one big turd ball and call it Buchooverlidgesonpie. Every day I have to live with the fact that the greatest President my state has to offer is a fictional character. Hey, I'm from PA, so I too know the curse of being represented by a single crapty pres.
|
|
|
Post by 3Lephant (Naptown Icon) on Mar 3, 2020 17:49:37 GMT -5
I don’t want to be overconfident and say that this’ll be a Trump landslide, but I don’t see Trump losing come November. Bernie’s adoration for actual dictators or Biden’s constant gaffes (150 million gun deaths since 2007!?) will be Trump’s main point of attack if they become the nominee, and he hits pretty hard when he does attack. I don’t see Pocahontas getting the nominee. She’s extremely unlikeable and has a habit of playing the race and gender card anytime she can. Bloomberg just seems to be there for a lol rather than a serious interest in becoming president. When he doesn’t get the nominee, it’ll be interesting to see if the winner will accept his money if he chooses to donate. Has Bernie given a price tag yet of how much his policies will cost? It’s obviously going to cost trillions, tens of trillions. Even if the democrats take the house and senate later this year, I don’t see them allocating that much money. He’s basically campaigning on ideas that aren’t achievable. Quick note, let’s keep this civil everyone. It is possible to disagree with someone without having a go at them. I hear people give Bernie crap for not completely disowning dictators. But you do know that Trump has been more BFF with all of our dictator enemies than anyone else right?
|
|