What's new
By:
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 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Brenthoven said:
That sure was a well-thought-out rebuttal using reason and intelligence.
Click to expand...

As if ANY of your or drew's have any actual reason or intelligence...

Holy cow, some of you guys really amaze me.

Being politically correct is bad, moreso when someone else freely does it.

Again, it's amazing to see your politically correctness because of actions of someone else you claim are politically correct. You *FEEL* offended.

The double standard is just shocking.
 
Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

FadeToBlack&Gold said:
So, it sounds like the Phoenix rally was the usual. Totally unscripted, still butthurt that he lost the popular vote, still dogwhistling to neo-Nazis ("They're taking away our history and our heritage!"), still promising to "Build the Wall", still whining about "fake news" (lugenpresse - look it up), etc.

EDIT: Oh, and he trashed both McCain and Flake without saying their names, which he said was "very Presidential" :rolleyes:.

You can pretty much read the executive summary, with fact checking, here.
Click to expand...

It took just one day to be go from somewhat presidential to very much not.

Given dumps need to have a cheering crowd for him, it's amazing, again, the parallels with the '30s. dump put zero effort into actually leading this country, but puts it all into people cheering for him.

If he want's his agenda- work for it.

That last line reminds me of a lot of the people dishing out blame for them not being successful. dump is a LOT like many of his supporters- not willing to work, and then blaming others for his failures. Plus bullying his opponents. No wonder he gets so much support.
 
Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Brenthoven said:
He has the same name as a long-dead general. That's it. You're basically saying that the area is full of stupid people that might be offended by a common name. Pretty snow-flakey if you ask me. ;)
Click to expand...

As opposed to those getting offended that they made the change in the first place. Yep, pretty snow-flakey.
 
Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

FadeToBlack&Gold said:
Rover obviously knocked off and hit the bar early today, as he's again looking to have the same fight where there isn't one to be had. Calling Hillary mean names had nothing to do with Democrats not turning out for her. Hillary fcked it up for herself by campaigning in red states, when she should've been campaigning to save the "Blue Wall", where Kellyanne Conway told Dump to spend most of October. It worked for him, and she scored a victory for the plutes.

Hillary had mediocre strategists, terrible tacticians, and therefore ran a doomed campaign. Rover, you know that the conscience of every left-leaning poster in these threads is clean - we all voted for her. Now, get over it and have yourself another rum & Coke before you stroke out.
Click to expand...

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Clinton is a done deal. However, will the attitude prevail that if we don't get 100% of what we want we'll either not vote or broadcast to the world that we've been dragged into the voting booth kicking and screaming? Sadly when I look at the left right now I see the same people making the same mistakes, and I shudder at Trump post re-election with absolutely nothing to restrain him. The right is playing for keeps. The left? Not so much.
 
alfablue said:
As if ANY of your or drew's have any actual reason or intelligence...

Holy cow, some of you guys really amaze me.

Being politically correct is bad, moreso when someone else freely does it.

Again, it's amazing to see your politically correctness because of actions of someone else you claim are politically correct. You *FEEL* offended.

The double standard is just shocking.
Click to expand...

I don't think me, Brent, or anyone on this board is personally offended. We just think it's a crazy decision to make. It's an early season non-conference college football game that is being broadcast online. How many people actually watch? Maybe 50k? The game is being played in Charlottesville and one would think that a lot of the local fans would go if they're interested.
 
Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Rover said:
Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Clinton is a done deal. However, will the attitude prevail that if we don't get 100% of what we want we'll either not vote or broadcast to the world that we've been dragged into the voting booth kicking and screaming? Sadly when I look at the left right now I see the same people making the same mistakes, and I shudder at Trump post re-election with absolutely nothing to restrain him. The right is playing for keeps. The left? Not so much.
Click to expand...

I was listening to Mark Thompson on Make it Plain (XM) coming in this morning and he was saying the same thing, so I'll take you seriously that this is a common worry for Democratic moderates.

In my opinion, it is a greatly exaggerated issue. I am not sold on the thesis that a lot of Democrats stayed away from Hillary because she was toxic, but even if they did she no longer matters and the negatives that surrounded her are not operant going forward. There will be a spectrum of Democratic candidates from corporate-friendly to worker-friendly, and obviously moderates will prefer the former and liberals the latter during the nomination phase. But they will all be relatively near the midpoint of the spectrum. Hillary and Bernie were outliers at each extreme so there was bound to be an issue knitting the party together. That chasm won't repeat. Corey Booker is say +4 corporate and, well frankly there's really nobody out there on the pro-worker side -- the best we have is a Franken at around the midpoint. So we'll be patching a 4-point gap, not a 20-point gap.

If you are worried that the Bernie insults of Hillary were demoralizing then I encourage you to also self-examine and see that your insults of liberals are likewise counterproductive if the goal is a united party.
 
Last edited:
Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Drew S. said:
I don't think me, Brent, or anyone on this board is personally offended. We just think it's a crazy decision to make. It's an early season non-conference college football game that is being broadcast online. How many people actually watch? Maybe 50k? The game is being played in Charlottesville and one would think that a lot of the local fans would go if they're interested.
Click to expand...

So why bring it up?

Why accuse ESPN for bringing out the PC police?

Normally, when something doesn't bother me, I don't bother to mention it.

And you can't actually explain in real words why it's so crazy to even attempt to not make someone angry. That's a total mystery to me. It is REALLY crazy to not try to upset people? Really? That's rather insane, to me.
 
Kepler said:
I was listening to Mark Thompson on Make it Plain (XM) coming in this morning and he was saying the same thing, so I'll take you seriously that this is a common worry for Democratic moderates.

In my opinion, it is a greatly exaggerated issue. I am not sold on the thesis that a lot of Democrats stayed away from Hillary because she was toxic, but even if they did she no longer matters and the negatives that surrounded her are not operant going forward. There will be a spectrum of Democratic candidates from corporate-friendly to worker-friendly, and obviously moderates will prefer the former and liberals the latter during the nomination phase. But they will all be relatively near the midpoint of the spectrum. Hillary and Bernie were outliers at each extreme so there was bound to be an issue knitting the party together. That chasm won't repeat. Corey Booker is say +4 corporate and, well frankly there's really nobody out there on the pro-worker side -- the best we have is a Franken at around the midpoint. So we'll be patching a 4-point gap, not a 20-point gap.

If you are worried that the Bernie insults of Hillary were demoralizing then I encourage you to also self-examine and see that your insults of liberals are likewise counterproductive if the goal is a united party.
Click to expand...

I saw you reference her yesterday and didn't get the chance to ask, but what do you make of the Kamala Harris hype?
 
Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Drew S. said:
I saw you reference her yesterday and didn't get the chance to ask, but what do you make of the Kamala Harris hype?
Click to expand...

Small sample size so far. I like her ambition and intelligence. I like that she was aggressive during the Sessions hearings. She's "Obama with Boobs" (and I like boobs) and that is my explanation for the hype.

On the downside she has a corporate streak and, well, she's Obama with boobs: she'll sell out the hindmost to court the fat wallet donors. She's not going to reverse the rush to lethal inequality in any significant way; she'll nibble around the edges or possibly even exacerbate it like every Democrat since JFK.

Kamala Harris vs Gavin Newsom is shaping up to be a qualifier for the nomination frontrunner. I'm happy with that -- they seem like solid representatives of the moderate and liberal wings, respectively. They're both smart and ruthless campaigners and they're both telegenic and charismatic which is good for attracting the lofos. And they're both under 900 years old, which is a nice change for the Methuselah Party.

I am cautiously optimistic. Rover is gonna LOVE her.
 
Last edited:
Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

alfablue said:
Wait, you are "outraged" over the fact that ESPN is allegedly trying to be sensitive to both some viewers and one of it's broadcasters?

Wow.

It's REALLY funny how people get so upset over simple things like "insulting your intelligence" but somehow have difficulty understanding that people get offended by symbols of slavery and opression.

What's up with that?

Is THAT the only reason people are up in arms over this? That's it?
Click to expand...

Again, by removing the announcer from this particular game, they basically said:

"This area of people is so sensitive to the name Robert Lee that this announcer could trigger them into doing something foolish." I'd say that's pretty insulting to the viewers.
 
Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Anybody else remember the commercial in which a white guy crashes the Lee Family Reunion because they were serving Bud Light?

"You're Chung's oldest son?"
"Yes!"
"You look a lot like him"

We could laugh about it then ...
 
Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

May just be random drift but for the first time consecutive daily Gallup polls show Trump at -24% or worse.

In other polling, Mitch McConnell is currently at 79% disapproval in Kentucky, so Trump's brickbats are at least finding one target. Jeff Flake beware.
 
Last edited:
Kepler said:
Small sample size so far. I like her ambition and intelligence. I like that she was aggressive during the Sessions hearings. She's "Obama with Boobs" (and I like boobs) and that is my explanation for the hype.

On the downside she has a corporate streak and, well, she's Obama with boobs: she'll sell out the hindmost to court the fat wallet donors. She's not going to reverse the rush to lethal inequality in any significant way; she'll nibble around the edges or possibly even exacerbate it like every Democrat since JFK.

Kamala Harris vs Gavin Newsom is shaping up to be a qualifier for the nomination frontrunner. I'm happy with that -- they seem like solid representatives of the moderate and liberal wings, respectively. They're both smart and ruthless campaigners and they're both telegenic and charismatic which is good for attracting the lofos. And they're both under 900 years old, which is a nice change for the Methuselah Party.

I am cautiously optimistic. Rover is gonna LOVE her.
Click to expand...

Is she anywhere close to as smart as Obama? He had degrees from two Ivy League schools. It seems like she is getting hyped based on her identity more than anything else.

I really think Terry McAullife is your guy. If it is him versus Trump no way he loses. I know Rover probably likes him more than you, but I'm sure you would take him over the current occupant of the White House.
 
Brenthoven said:
Again, by removing the announcer from this particular game, they basically said:

"This area of people is so sensitive to the name Robert Lee that this announcer could trigger them into doing something foolish." I'd say that's pretty insulting to the viewers.
Click to expand...

And pretty accurate.
 
Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Drew S. said:
Is she anywhere close to as smart as Obama? He had degrees from two Ivy League schools. It seems like she is getting hyped based on her identity more than anything else.

I really think Terry McAullife is your guy. If it is him versus Trump no way he loses. I know Rover probably likes him more than you, but I'm sure you would take him over the current occupant of the White House.
Click to expand...

Terry McAuliffe is terrible. What he lacks in political courage he more than makes worse with poor political instincts and a complete lack of charisma. He also just smells like he has a ton of financial misconduct in his past. Early on in the Cafe's existence somebody suggested I was Terry McAuliffe (Catholic New Yorker, pro-Carter, Democrat and over-the-top Notre Dame football fan). I don't think I've ever felt more insulted.

I don't know how smart Harris is. Her academic pedigree is weak and she was a DA, both of which suggest mediocrity. Like Obama she is a hardcore political animal and scheming opportunist -- I think of her as Selina Meyer. We certainly wouldn't be getting the intellectual-professorial Obama, but that's a plus -- Pete Palooka hates intelligence (c.f. Dukakis, M.).
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top