USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!
- Thread starter joecct
- Start date
- Status
WeAreNDHockey
\../ \../
Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!
It was 9 months into Nixon's second term (and nearly a year and a half after the Watergate break-in) before more people thought Nixon should be removed from office than approved of the job he was doing. From that point until he was forced to resign those numbers never switched back around. But that was a president who was re-elected with true landslides on both the popular vote and the electoral college and began his second term with an approval rating of nearly 70% before continued events had the public turning on him.
But 2017 is not 1973. Now we are a more polarized electorate. Nixon supporters abandoned him as quick as they could scrape the Nixon/Agnew '72 bumper stickers off their cars. Yes, he had a core group of supporters and some key aids who apologize for him to this day (Kissinger, Buchanan) but everyday voters rarely even admitted they voted for him, let alone expressed a great deal of support. But in 2017 once you've staked out your political turf (and this is especially and almost universally true on the right) nothing short of your candidate having sex with your daughter, stealing your pick-up or mowing down your marijuana grow operation so he can sell his own weed will lead you to turning on him. And for those who want to point out that this is an equal opportunity disease I will remind you that, no it is not.
The proof of this was in the 2016 election. If people who tended to vote for someone because of the little "d" and that was all that mattered, Hillary would have won. But the people who do usually vote for the candidate with the little "d" did not all do that in 2016. Right or wrong (well of course they were wrong) they actually thought things through and voted some other way (or not at all) in 2016. Sure, it's ugly, sure I'm saying you're stupid and lacking in critical thinking skills. but the fact is more right wing voters are sheep than left wing voters. Anyone who doesn't see that simply does not want to. Or is too stupid to.
It was 9 months into Nixon's second term (and nearly a year and a half after the Watergate break-in) before more people thought Nixon should be removed from office than approved of the job he was doing. From that point until he was forced to resign those numbers never switched back around. But that was a president who was re-elected with true landslides on both the popular vote and the electoral college and began his second term with an approval rating of nearly 70% before continued events had the public turning on him.
But 2017 is not 1973. Now we are a more polarized electorate. Nixon supporters abandoned him as quick as they could scrape the Nixon/Agnew '72 bumper stickers off their cars. Yes, he had a core group of supporters and some key aids who apologize for him to this day (Kissinger, Buchanan) but everyday voters rarely even admitted they voted for him, let alone expressed a great deal of support. But in 2017 once you've staked out your political turf (and this is especially and almost universally true on the right) nothing short of your candidate having sex with your daughter, stealing your pick-up or mowing down your marijuana grow operation so he can sell his own weed will lead you to turning on him. And for those who want to point out that this is an equal opportunity disease I will remind you that, no it is not.
The proof of this was in the 2016 election. If people who tended to vote for someone because of the little "d" and that was all that mattered, Hillary would have won. But the people who do usually vote for the candidate with the little "d" did not all do that in 2016. Right or wrong (well of course they were wrong) they actually thought things through and voted some other way (or not at all) in 2016. Sure, it's ugly, sure I'm saying you're stupid and lacking in critical thinking skills. but the fact is more right wing voters are sheep than left wing voters. Anyone who doesn't see that simply does not want to. Or is too stupid to.
Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!
Again, I'll ask: if that isn't it, what the hell would a 100% slam-dunk obstruction charge actually look like?
Again, I'll ask: if that isn't it, what the hell would a 100% slam-dunk obstruction charge actually look like?
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!
I think it is but about half of Law Academia (on the TV shows) think it isn't and the other half thinks it is. It's been evenly split.
I think it is but about half of Law Academia (on the TV shows) think it isn't and the other half thinks it is. It's been evenly split.
Handyman
Hug someone you care about...
Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!
Yeah sorry that doesnt fly. Stern is entertainment people watch Faux for news.
And sorry if any liberals watch Fox then they have no one to blame but themselves. I can honestly say I ave never made the choice to watch that or listen to Hate Radio.
Yeah sorry that doesnt fly. Stern is entertainment people watch Faux for news.
And sorry if any liberals watch Fox then they have no one to blame but themselves. I can honestly say I ave never made the choice to watch that or listen to Hate Radio.
Handyman
Hug someone you care about...
Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!
And do these geniuses realize that Mueller is doing more than listening to Comey's testimony? He is...you know...investigating?
And do these geniuses realize that Mueller is doing more than listening to Comey's testimony? He is...you know...investigating?
WeAreNDHockey
\../ \../
Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!
FOX News and hate radio is so predictable you don't even need to watch/listen. I understand the whole "know your enemy" aspect to it, but it isn't even necessary. If you have a good understanding of any particular news item you ought to be able to predict what they're going to say. Hell it's probably easier than predicting which song they're going to play on classic rock radio stations when they say "coming up after the break we've got Segar, The Pretenders, And Rush."
FOX News and hate radio is so predictable you don't even need to watch/listen. I understand the whole "know your enemy" aspect to it, but it isn't even necessary. If you have a good understanding of any particular news item you ought to be able to predict what they're going to say. Hell it's probably easier than predicting which song they're going to play on classic rock radio stations when they say "coming up after the break we've got Segar, The Pretenders, And Rush."
ScoobyDoo
NPC
No. They're stupid. I said it was based on what "we" know. We can't go off futures that don't exist yet or may never materialize.
FadeToBlack&Gold
Microlot Marxist
Same reason I lurk on FReep - it's irritaining.
leswp1
Well-known member
Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!
Nope. They would blame their daughter, tell you they must have forgotten they loaned the pick up to him and be thankful he showed them the weaknesses in their security around the weed field.
French Rage
NICKERSON HAS [CENSORED]
Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!
http://www.shortpacked.com/comics/2010-07-14-starspangledpanties.png
(Here's the funny part: that's from 2010.)
http://www.shortpacked.com/comics/2010-07-14-starspangledpanties.png
(Here's the funny part: that's from 2010.)
WeAreNDHockey
\../ \../
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!
Understatement of the millennium, but still notable and good.
Understatement of the millennium, but still notable and good.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!
I go on Freep every once in a while to see the bleeding edge new frontier of stupid. I've never been irritated by them. It's like watching pre-schoolers throw mud.
I go on Freep every once in a while to see the bleeding edge new frontier of stupid. I've never been irritated by them. It's like watching pre-schoolers throw mud.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!
This is shocking. That little numbskull is a weather vane for the RNC. He doesn't matter, but it means the winds are changing.
This is shocking. That little numbskull is a weather vane for the RNC. He doesn't matter, but it means the winds are changing.
Last edited:
WeAreNDHockey
\../ \../
Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!
Ex-U.S. Attorney Bharara tells of 'unusual' calls he received from Trump
I get the notion expressed by Speaker Ryan that part of trump's difficulty stems from not having any experience in government. But if that is the case, why not surround yourself with enough qualified people that this flaw remains hidden for the most part? The very idea that a person can "learn on the job" as president of the United States is farcical and downright dangerous. That trump supporters do not understand this (or worse, do not care) is yet another example of how stupid they are. We don't want our football coaches learning on the job for crying out loud. Why do NFL or major college football head coaches select as their go-to assistant coach someone from the opposite side of the ball that they cut their teeth on? Because they know (or should know -- why do ND fans who recall a time when Notre Dame mattered hate Brian Kelly so much?) that it is important to have every base covered, as far as experience goes.
Of course it is impossible for someone who has never been president before to come into the office completely versed in what he or she will see. The responsibilities are beyond enormous. But trump is so woefully unqualified for this it literally makes me sad to think that there were 60 million people out there willing to risk the future of the world on him. The lasting damage that the world will be dealing with for years after trump is gone if he serves a full term is on them. They will have blood on their hands. By the end of this there are going to be tens of millions of Americans who have separated themselves from the rest of us, and that will be a terrible thing.
Ex-U.S. Attorney Bharara tells of 'unusual' calls he received from Trump
I get the notion expressed by Speaker Ryan that part of trump's difficulty stems from not having any experience in government. But if that is the case, why not surround yourself with enough qualified people that this flaw remains hidden for the most part? The very idea that a person can "learn on the job" as president of the United States is farcical and downright dangerous. That trump supporters do not understand this (or worse, do not care) is yet another example of how stupid they are. We don't want our football coaches learning on the job for crying out loud. Why do NFL or major college football head coaches select as their go-to assistant coach someone from the opposite side of the ball that they cut their teeth on? Because they know (or should know -- why do ND fans who recall a time when Notre Dame mattered hate Brian Kelly so much?) that it is important to have every base covered, as far as experience goes.
Of course it is impossible for someone who has never been president before to come into the office completely versed in what he or she will see. The responsibilities are beyond enormous. But trump is so woefully unqualified for this it literally makes me sad to think that there were 60 million people out there willing to risk the future of the world on him. The lasting damage that the world will be dealing with for years after trump is gone if he serves a full term is on them. They will have blood on their hands. By the end of this there are going to be tens of millions of Americans who have separated themselves from the rest of us, and that will be a terrible thing.
Handyman
Hug someone you care about...
Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!
Must not have been in the Senate Hall cause he never would have said it there. The man is a two faced weasel sellout...
Must not have been in the Senate Hall cause he never would have said it there. The man is a two faced weasel sellout...
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!
DC and Maryland are suing Trump for violating the emoluments clause.
Trump will never be convicted of course because (a) politics and (b) he's a billionaire and beyond the reach of law, but if he was would a conviction constitute a slam dunk if he was impeached, or would Congress still have to prove this somehow constituted real damage to the US?
DC and Maryland are suing Trump for violating the emoluments clause.
Trump will never be convicted of course because (a) politics and (b) he's a billionaire and beyond the reach of law, but if he was would a conviction constitute a slam dunk if he was impeached, or would Congress still have to prove this somehow constituted real damage to the US?
WeAreNDHockey
\../ \../
Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!
Senator Joe Donnelly (D-IN) takes the opposite approach from McCain, as he strives to never make a public utterance of substance that either party or side of the political aisle can take in a negative fashion. Following the Comey testimony he made the following statement:
That statement alone sums up the gutless and cowardly way most politicians in Washington operate. Who could take offense at his words? Who, other than the most vile, already drank the trump Kool-Aid and believes nothing anymore other than what comes from his mouth or thumbs trump supporters, would not agree with the sentiment Donnelly expresses? Donnelly was my representative when he was in congress and when he knew the political winds were shifting decided to run for the Senate. He won only because, in the pre-trump era when stupid statements could cost a republican pol a win, his opponent said women who get pregnant from rape or incest should not be able to get an abortion because that pregnancy was "a gift from God." He's about as useful and effective as my nipples, serving only as a reliable vote generally against the worst legislation the republicans will trot out.
Senator Joe Donnelly (D-IN) takes the opposite approach from McCain, as he strives to never make a public utterance of substance that either party or side of the political aisle can take in a negative fashion. Following the Comey testimony he made the following statement:
That statement alone sums up the gutless and cowardly way most politicians in Washington operate. Who could take offense at his words? Who, other than the most vile, already drank the trump Kool-Aid and believes nothing anymore other than what comes from his mouth or thumbs trump supporters, would not agree with the sentiment Donnelly expresses? Donnelly was my representative when he was in congress and when he knew the political winds were shifting decided to run for the Senate. He won only because, in the pre-trump era when stupid statements could cost a republican pol a win, his opponent said women who get pregnant from rape or incest should not be able to get an abortion because that pregnancy was "a gift from God." He's about as useful and effective as my nipples, serving only as a reliable vote generally against the worst legislation the republicans will trot out.
Wisko McBadgerton
Teaching you how to Bucky.
Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!
Not what your getting at but it occurs to me Congress doesn't have to prove any real charge or contrivance they can come up with since it's essentially a loaded jury trial in the Senate. If, for example, they had wanted to impeach President Obama for being a Kenyan, they could have. They don't need evidence or proof for anything, rather just the political will and the corresponding votes. Nothing can stop them.
Not what your getting at but it occurs to me Congress doesn't have to prove any real charge or contrivance they can come up with since it's essentially a loaded jury trial in the Senate. If, for example, they had wanted to impeach President Obama for being a Kenyan, they could have. They don't need evidence or proof for anything, rather just the political will and the corresponding votes. Nothing can stop them.
- Status