Well, guess what, sports fans? The NRA may say that, but Trump won't return the favor. He is a completely untrustworthy fuck. His word, his promises, are not worth a goddamned thing. He will shiv you right in the back on a whim.
That's how he has run his business empire, as the piano guy found out. He fucks everybody he ever deals with.
You'd have to damn near be an anacephalic to expect otherwise.
21 comments:
We only voted for him 'cause the Pantsuit was the greater evil.
He may or may not be a friend, she was certainly the enemy.
And that is how you get Trump.
That certainly wasn't what the NRA was shoveling out. They were selling Deranged Donnie as the savior of the 2A.
Yeah, B, think of all the E-mail investigations they would have held if Hillary had been elected.
I rememeber the primaries.
I don't know how the hell Trump got nominated.
He still isn't as bad as Hillary would've been. And no, I don't have a cite for that.
"I don't know how the hell Trump got nominated."
I do. He got nominated because more Republicans voted for him than the other 16 candidates. Which meant he could prevail in the early primaries with the sort of numbers that win when the totals are divided fifteen ways, and by the time the field had narrowed, he was running against Cruz and Kasich, again, because that's who the Republicans voted for.
-Doug in Oakland
The problem with primaries is that they are often controlled by a subset of the voting group. In a closed primary, the “motivated” voter holds undue influence, simply because they vote, and is especially true in areas that only require a plurality of the vote to advance. In an open primary, the problem is less significant, but still present. The general result of the primary system seems to be more radical candidates advanced to the general by a small, highly organized, portion of the voting whole. We can see this is even more true in off-year and local/state election versus Federal elections.
The one light in the darkness is the hope that as the electorate splinters more with a larger unaffiliated center, the more radical candidates, left and right, will be punished at the ballot box by the Independent voters. Sadly, without a viable third party, this often only results in a slightly less radical politician winning.
CP: That is not a bad theory. How do we fix that?
I mean, D or R or Independent, having a more "radical" person at the helm isn't good.
B, your stated belief that "D or R or Independent, having a more "radical" person at the helm isn't good" is interesting.
I think all sides would agree that Donald Trump was a much more radical candidate than Hillary Clinton. Likewise, tenure in office represents a series of much more radical decisions than those expected from a Clinton presidency.
Many conservatives have cast those radical decisions in a positive light. Trump is "shaking up Washington", he's "draining the swamp", "Trump doesn't play by the rules".
This would seem to be at odds with the belief you just espoused. How do you square these two things? Is it a case of "well, except when he's our radical"? Or just blindly following the Russian-planted "but Hillary was a criminal/antichrist" content?
Genuinely curious...
Nope, I think Hillary was just as radical, only in a different direction. And, honestly, more dangerous for the country, she didn't believe in the Constitution, and she did sell her office as SOS for personal gain....what might she have done as president?
*Neither* of them would have been my first choice. We had, as other choices in the primaries, weaklings on one side (R) and socialists on the other (D). None of 'em were Good choices. It came down to "Trump or Hillary?".
"Lesser of the two weasels" and all that.
I would like to have your thoughts as to how we get some folks that are candidates that we can vote FOR, rather than against. Your point about the primaries was a good one.
How do we fix it? We, as a nation.
Instant Runoff Voting.
Vote for choices in order, lowest vote getter(s) eliminated and their votes changed to second choices, rinse, repeat for winner.
Example: Donald, Hillary, Jill, Gary and Evan run in Colorado. Hillary gets 40 first place votes, Donnie gets 35 first place votes, Evan gets 11 and Jill and Gary get 7 each. Jill and Gary are eliminated, Jill’s ballots are examined and the second place votes are 4 for Hillary, 1 for Donald, 1 for Evan and 1 for Gary. The third place vote after Gary was for Donald, resulting in 2 for Donald. Gary’s ballots split 1 for Hillary, 5 for Donald and 1 for Evan. We now have 45/42/13. Evan is eliminated and his votes go 4 to Hillary and 9 to Donald. Donald wins 51/49.
CP88: We have instant runoff voting here in Oakland, and the first time they used it we got Jean Quan as our mayor, so it has its problems, also.
And what you said about primaries and off-cycle elections is the way Ted Cruz was elected to the senate in a state with close to 27 million people with only 632,812 votes.
Here's an article from 2015 that explains that:
https://ivn.us/2015/03/24/ted-cruz-won-senate-seat-just-632000-votes-state-27-million/
-Doug in Oakland
Doug, I whole-heartedly agree it has issues, but it allows the development of a genuine alternative. If the D’s and the G’s vote each other one and two and the R’aand the L’s Do the same, we will allow some G’s and L’s to take office and offer choices. Right now, tactical voting is the thing. Vote in the R’s primary to promote the extreme candidate so that the D in the general has a better chance.
From Taegan Goddard:
President Trump voiced support for confiscating guns from certain dangerous individuals, even if it violates due process rights, The Hill reports.
Said Trump: “I like taking the guns early like in this crazy man’s case that just took place in Florida … to go to court would have taken a long time. Take the guns first, go through due process second.”
Still feel like Fergus has your back on gun laws?
-Doug in Oakland
Never did. He's Noo Yawk City dude. He isn't real savvy about firearms.
But he didn't PROMISE to confiscate, unlike his opponent.
Which, again, is why we got Trump. THe lesser of the two bad choices.
WHile we'd all like to see folks with derangements or mental diseases kept from owning guns, I don't think he can make it happen without Due Process. As for the rest, well, according to your side, he is owned by the NRA/GunLobby so they'll set him right.....
How you feeling about Due Process now, after Donnie’s latest brain storm? Given that Hillary has not proposed confiscating guns, you sure about the best choice?
Don't think he will get "No Due Process" but I think it is a stupid idea.
ANd if you think Hillary wouldn't have made life harder for firearms enthusiasts, then I got a Bridge to sell you....
I really don't think you are that stupid though. You know, and I know what would have happened had she been elected. You and I may disagree on a lot of things, but I don't believe for a moment you are that stupid.
Hillary would have pushed for some changes, but as a lawyer, she would have done so in a way that respected the law. She would certainly have proposed legislation she’d like to see passed, but she couldn’t do it on her own. You would actually be in better shape, because the NRA would still have a solid bloc of R’s, where Donnie’s flip-flop has weakened the R side by splitting off some of those willing to compromise and who may, with Donnie and the D’s pass some legislation.
The unreasoning hatred of Hillary you possess is blinding you to the fac she’s a politician, and acts accordingly...Donnie is not, and thus is tremendously unpredictable.
My "unreasoning hatred" as you call it is based on her past performance. She has no morals, only the willingness to sell her position and power to the highest bidder. She is a Liberal, with no respect for the LAW. She panders to the most radical parts of the country's politics.
At least TheDonald is held in check by the Democrats. They would have let Hillary do whatever she wanted and the R's would have stood by and done nothing..or made a lot of noise and then knuckled under at best. As it is, he can't do much because his opposition tries their best to stop him, even when it would be in the best interest of the country.
I wouldn't hold too much stock in your predictions. At the end of the day, I doubt much changes. Neither side is powerful enough to make much happen. Your predictions regarding Donnie haven't been so good in the past year.
Blind is he, blinded by unreasoning hatred. To suggest that Hillary has less morals than Donald or any of the other Rethuglican players is insane. To accuse her of not respecting the law BECAUSE she is a “liberal” is clear proof of reactionary, viceral animus. To suggest she panders to the most radical elements is to ignore her actions and positions. To argue that the D’s are holding The Donald in check is to ignore facts, the R’s are hamstringing themselves, without D help. You really should exit the Faux News echo chamber before you go deaf.
"They would have let Hillary do whatever she wanted..."
They are in the minority, B. And they would have been much more likely to stay there had she won, you know that thing in reality where the incoming president's party loses the first mid-terms? Couple that with the political firestorm Fergus' election has lit not being there for what would have been a boring, middle-of-the-road presidency by comparison, and the Republicans would have done well in '18. They're much more skilled at opposition than governing, so they wouldn't have inspired the sort of loathing they are laboring under now, and their electoral prospects would be better.
-Doug in Oakland
Personal attack. Red card. (You know who you are.)
Post a Comment