"When they go low, we kick them" - page 2

- Eric Holder is this really how we want to be perceived?... Read More

  1. by   toomuchbaloney
    Quote from Tweety
    macawake, do you have to provide any ID to prove citizenship?

    I am of the "when they go low we go high" variety. The putting up of Trump busts for dogs to pee on, the statues of him in the nude, the endless low class memes on social media, the calling him "the orange one", that's going low. I don't participate.

    But when I say I "resist" and "fight back" that really doesn't mean I'm advocating violence does it? I means I resist and fight back. I go to peaceful protests, write letters and I vote to make my voice heard.
    you probably noticed that in Trumplandia it doesn't matter what you are actually doing, it only matters what Trumpublicans say you are doing. NFL players aren't protesting police brutality in that bubble, they are disrespecting the flag, or the anthem, or veterans, or whatever thing that will invigorate the GOP voting base.

    2+2=5
  2. by   nursej22
    John Kelly's email called Senator Elizabeth Warren " an impolite, arrogant woman" when she attempted to get answers for her constituents about the Muslim travel ban. Warren has also been criticized for being assertive by the Senate Majority Leader, "nevertheless, she persisted," and labeled goofy, weak, and ineffective by the President. And he has tried to make a racial slur about her.

    She has been pushing back, firmly. And yet, the attacks continue.
  3. by   macawake
    Quote from Tweety
    macawake, do you have to provide any ID to prove citizenship?
    Yes, you have to show your ID when you vote. Everyone has at least one ID card (whether it's a passport, driver's license or one issued by a bank or by an employer). You can't really function in society without one and you couldn't travel abroad. In the unlikely event you've lost your ID card right before election date, another person with a valid ID card can vouch for your identity at the polls.

    Apart from an ID card you also bring your voter registration card to the polling station. It's automatically mailed to you about a month prior to the election (you don't have to do anything for this to happen). And it always works. Always. We have quite an efficient bureaucracy going...

    Citizens can vote in all four elections; one national, two local and the EU election. An EU citizen residing here is eligible to vote (from the first day of residence) in the EU election and the two local elections but not the national (parliament) election. A non-EU citizen living here is allowed to vote in the two local elections after they've resided here for three years.

    Oh, and it's one person = one vote. They are all worth EXACTLY the same.

    Quote from Tweety
    I am of the "when they go low we go high" variety. The putting up of Trump busts for dogs to pee on, the statues of him in the nude, the endless low class memes on social media, the calling him "the orange one", that's going low. I don't participate.
    Yeah, I wasn't suggesting that urinating on busts is a winning strategy. If you read my posts that wasn't at all what I was referring to when I said that always taking the high road when the other side rides roughshod over you, is a losing strategy.

    The passive doormat reaction I'm seeing from many politicians opposed to Trump is not going to win them elections. You literally have a situation where a minority are PERMITTED to walk all over the majority.

    Thanks to your system of electoral votes you have a President who has the support of less than half of the people who voted.

    California with a population of 39,536,653 get two Senators, as does Wyoming with a population of 579,315.

    List of states and territories of the United States by population - Wikipedia

    (One Congressman from California represents 702,885 residents and one from Wyoming 563,767).

    When Judge Kavanuagh was confirmed, that Senators who voted "aye" represented FAR LESS than half the population. I think I saw somewhere that the numbers are roughly 140 million (aye) vs 180 million (nay). You have a court that's far more conservative than the average American. Does it really represent you?

    Why doesn't this strike y'all as unjust?

    If this was my country, I wouldn't be happy.

    Not only is the playing field uneven from the get-go where rural sparsely populated states are granted disproportionate power, but it's further skewed by the fact that some states appear to allow the disgusting practice of systematically suppressing black and other minority votes.

    Back to bust desecration.... I don't think that Eric Holder had peeing on busts in mind either...

    He clearly said when I say we kick them, --> I don't mean we do anything inappropriate, we don't do anything illegal.

    Regarding this thread. A person is being 100% disingenuous if they try to make it sound like he was advocating violence. I have nothing but contempt for this Trumpster stategy of trying to misrepresent (mening LIE about) reality.

    Quote from Tweety
    ...the endless low class memes on social media, the calling him "the orange one", that's going low. I don't participate.
    Personally I find the memes asinine. I swear, the mere act of seeing them, probably kills off a non-neglible amount of brain cells....

    However... I'm convinced they helped Trump win the 2016 election. Trump supporters seem to respond well to them. We certainly didn't see any of our regular Trump supporting posters here condemn for example the ridiculous and distasteful memes depicting Hillary Clinton with fake syphilitic lesions, that were posted here by other Trump aficionados during the 2016 campaign.

    The other side plays dirty.

    So do you go the snob route and refuse to use them and leave them to the less scrupulous Trump folks... or...

    I'm on the fence.
  4. by   Ted
    I want to be clear that I do NOT advocate violence of any type. It's not in my nature. BUT. . . I do have a warped sense of humor. So, I find the thought of having busts of Trump that were actually conceived and manufactured for pets (and people) to urinate on to be hilarious! (For heaven's sake! I wrote music to the lyrics, "Sarie Gamp's Enema Camp" that's found on one of our Too Live Nurse CDs that thousands of people have purchased in past years!!)

    I also find that such a product, which was actually conceived and manufactured by some company, to be both embarrassing and cathartic. (It's also ironic.) It's embarrassing because Trump is embarrassing and dangerous. Trump, a verifiable liar, represents a huge and dangerous low in our nation's values and morality. For many reasons, this man can not be trusted on any level. It's cathartic because . . DAMN. . . that man, and the policies that he and his Administration support and have enacted, do little to support the human-beings that actually make our country a country. They weaken both work-related safe-guards, consumer safe-guards, environmental safe-guards, etc., etc. They separate children from their parents for warped reasons that defy logic and compassion. I read about the individuals who make up Trump's Administration (both past and present), and read about the policies that they support, and I want to SCREEM! So, yes! The idea of some company actually manufacturing a Bust of Trump, so that dogs (and humans) can piss on it, is cathartic for me. I wish Trump and his Team no violent encounters. THAT is hitting low. But busts of them deserve to be pissed on. And, they can all go to hell. . .
    Last edit by Ted on Oct 15
  5. by   toomuchbaloney
    Imagine a game where the players and fans all agreed up a set of rules. Imagine that one group of players, and their fans, regularly break the rules. Imagine that that group shouts and stomps their feet about how every other group is breaking the rules, while waving away evidence of them breaking rules as 'only fair' when their opponents are cheaters. Imagine that they can never provide proof of any rule breaking beyond their own.

    Imagine that the rule breaking team also professes to represent the moral arbiters of the game while following the leadership of the least moral player in the history of the game.
  6. by   Lil Nel
    Quote from toomuchbaloney
    Imagine a game where the players and fans all agreed up a set of rules. Imagine that one group of players, and their fans, regularly break the rules. Imagine that that group shouts and stomps their feet about how every other group is breaking the rules, while waving away evidence of them breaking rules as 'only fair' when their opponents are cheaters. Imagine that they can never provide proof of any rule breaking beyond their own.

    Imagine that the rule breaking team also professes to represent the moral arbiters of the game while following the leadership of the least moral player in the history of the game.
    Excellent analogy, baloney.

    For people still clinging to that quaint notion of kindness and civility: Wake Up.

    As the article Tweety posted, and macawake referred to, we are dealing with an entity that sees kindness and civility as a weakness.

    That is how Trump's deplorable behavior has been allowed to escalate, unabated.

    In some ways, he is like a young horse, and believe me, I loathe comparing him to creatures I love.

    But they will test you, repeatedly. They watch you closely, to determine if you are paying attention.

    You decide what you are willing to let them get away with, but remember, they will hurt you!.

    When you set the boundary, you must do it firmly, in order for the boundary to stick.

    I will also say I've witnessed this same behavior with some fellow nurses.

    My kind offer of help, is taken as a weakness.

    Suddenly, my male co-worker who has been watching tv on his phone most of the night, thinks he can dump his undone work on me.

    Nope.

    Kindness doesn't equal pushover, in my case.
  7. by   macawake
    Quote from toomuchbaloney
    Imagine a game where the players and fans all agreed up a set of rules. Imagine that one group of players, and their fans, regularly break the rules. Imagine that that group shouts and stomps their feet about how every other group is breaking the rules, while waving away evidence of them breaking rules as 'only fair' when their opponents are cheaters. Imagine that they can never provide proof of any rule breaking beyond their own.

    Imagine that the rule breaking team also professes to represent the moral arbiters of the game while following the leadership of the least moral player in the history of the game.
    You are, as I know you know, describing the current Republican party to a T (tee?).

    Now I'm waiting for OP or someone else to start a thread questioning if this is how Republicans "want us to be perceived"...

    Scott Wagner - Wikipedia
    On October 12, 2018 Wagner threatened in a gubernatorial campaign video to stomp on the face of the incumbent governor, Tom Wolf, while wearing golf cleats. "Gov. Wolf, let me tell you between now and Nov 6, you better put a catcher's mask on your face because I'm going to stomp all over your face with golf spikes."
    (partial quote, see Wikipedia or the Youtube video for more details).

    It appears the video has now been taken down by by the candidate/campaign and the candidate seems to have said that he may have chosen a poor metaphor and that he shouldn't have said what he said. I'll say...

    If you want to see the actual campaign video with the promised face stomping you can watch it on Youtube. The clip is from MSNBC; Candidate For Governor Says He'll 'Stomp' On Opponent | Morning Joe (35 seconds in).


    Quote from Ted
    I want to be clear that I do NOT advocate violence of any type. It's not in my nature. BUT. . . I do have a warped sense of humor. So, I find the thought of having busts of Trump that were actually conceived and manufactured for pets (and people) to urinate on to be hilarious!

    I confess to sharing you're somewhat warped sense of humor. I still don't think the busts will help win elections, but I can understand their cathartic value... If someone harbors a whole lot of (understandable) loathing towards current policies, combined with a sense of helplessness, it can probably be a useful "outlet"... Relieving the pressure so to speak
  8. by   SC_RNDude
    Quote from macawake
    When Judge Kavanuagh was confirmed, that Senators who voted "aye" represented FAR LESS than half the population. I think I saw somewhere that the numbers are roughly 140 million (aye) vs 180 million (nay). You have a court that's far more conservative than the average American. Does it really represent you?
    The structure of the Senate was a compromise between the bigger states and the smaller states. As you know, the House is representation based on population. The Senate gave smaller states equal representation to the bigger states in one Chamber of Congress. Some believed, correctly in my opinion, that if all representation was based on population that smaller states would often have their interests ignored without much recourse.

    Originally, the Senators were picked by state legislatures. That means, a legislature that might be pretty evenly split democrats and republicans had to agree on their representation in the Senate. And, once chosen those Senators were beholden to their state legislature.

    This system worked pretty well, but progressives of the "Progressive Era" of the late 1800's and early 1900's realized they would never get a progressive Senate under those conditions. They fought for a change, and eventually the 17th Amendment was ratified.
  9. by   SC_RNDude
    Quote from macawake
    Thanks to your system of electoral votes you have a President who has the support of less than half of the people who voted.
    You do realize Clinton only got 48% herself, don't you?

    Anyway, you can't come to a conclusion on who would have won if the object was to win the popular vote.

    Take away California's vote, and Trump won the popular vote. Half the difference was in LA County alone. How many resources to you think Trump spent on California? Practically zero.

    Likewise, there were places Clinton didn't campaign.

    Winning the popular vote wasn't how the game was played. What if they played the World Series, one team won 4 games to 3. And then after the series the title was given to the team who won 3 games because they actually scored more total runs in the 7 games? If those were the rules in the beginning, each game would have been played differently.

    If winning the popular vote had been the object of the campaign, campaigns would have been done differently. Each candidate would have deployed resources differently and the demographics of voter turnout would have been different.
  10. by   toomuchbaloney
    So are we going to pretend again that Russia didn't engage in a massive misinformation campaign to drive angry Americans to the polls to vote for Trump? Are we going to forward some Republican narrative that the reason Clinton lost is because of what she didn't do rather than what Russia did?
  11. by   Lil Nel
    C'mon baloney, Comrade Trump, said he believed Comrade Putin, when he the latter said his country did nothing to interfere in 2016 election!

    Just like Trump is giving cover to Saudis in the disappearance and alleged murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

    He is comparing the situation to the "I like beer," Kavanaugh debacle.

    Hmm.

    Why would Trump give such cover to the Saudis?

    Don't buy the arms deal line.

    Much of those deals fell under Obama administration.

    And how can Saudis fly American fighter jets with Chinese or Russian parts? That doesn't work.

    Does Trump benefit in the wallet from Saudi relations? Does Jared Kushner benefit in the wallet from Saudi relations?

    I will say this, too, I trust Iran far more than Saudi Arabia.

    9/11 hijackers? Backed by Saudi Arabia.

    So, what common interests, besides a hatred of Iran?
  12. by   nursej22
    Quote from SC_RNDude
    The structure of the Senate was a compromise between the bigger states and the smaller states. As you know, the House is representation based on population. The Senate gave smaller states equal representation to the bigger states in one Chamber of Congress. Some believed, correctly in my opinion, that if all representation was based on population that smaller states would often have their interests ignored without much recourse.

    Originally, the Senators were picked by state legislatures. That means, a legislature that might be pretty evenly split democrats and republicans had to agree on their representation in the Senate. And, once chosen those Senators were beholden to their state legislature.

    This system worked pretty well, but progressives of the "Progressive Era" of the late 1800's and early 1900's realized they would never get a progressive Senate under those conditions. They fought for a change, and eventually the 17th Amendment was ratified.
    I doubt that the writers of the constitution could have foreseen the the imbalance of numbers of voters in the various states, say California versus Wyoming. And I am sure you have seen the comparison of how many voters are represented by each senator in the various states :

    Population represented by state legislators - Ballotpedia

    It just seems inherently unfair that a electoral vote that represents 19,000 people has the same weight as an electoral vote that represents 900,000 people.
  13. by   chare
    Quote from nursej22
    [...]
    Population represented by state legislators - Ballotpedia

    It just seems inherently unfair that a electoral vote that represents 19,000 people has the same weight as an electoral vote that represents 900,000 people.
    North Dakota's estimated 2017 population is 755,393. With 2 senators and 1 representative, that's 1 electoral vote per 251,797 persons. California's estimated 2017 population is 39,536,653. With 2 senators and 53 representatives, that's 1 electoral vote for 718,848 persons.

    If you are going to compare state population with electoral votes, you should consider using representation in the US House and Senate, as that is what the electoral college is based on, and not the membership of the state house and Senate.

close