• Light/Dark
  • Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

US PoliERA 2018 |OT7| Tell Me The Bad Things That Happened Since I Fell Asleep

Status
Not open for further replies.
shiba5

shiba5

I shed
Moderator
Oct 25, 2017
15,791
Stinkles said:
I can't understand why they haven't fired Giuliani yet. He's absolutely butchering this whatever this is.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Probably because he's just out there to muddy the waters for the base. They're down to "don't believe the truth" at this point and that's aimed squarely at his base. No one else is buying.
 
BoboBrazil

BoboBrazil

Attempted to circumvent a ban with an alt
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
18,765
Giuliani seems like someone who will end up indicted when it's all over.
 
No Depth

No Depth

Member
Oct 27, 2017
18,298
BlastProcessing said:
Speaking of people who think they did nothing wrong...

Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


Republican strategy in a nutshell. Everyone else is at fault, I'm just a sad, cowardly victim that almost got away with horrible shit if not for those damn meddlers.

This is why we need to cut regulations, blame all our problems on the press and those truth-and-science loving libs, and all the different looking people that scares us to death because again we are cowardly sacks of shit!
 
chainlinkspiral

chainlinkspiral

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,579
No Depth said:
Republican strategy in a nutshell. Everyone else is at fault, I'm just a sad, cowardly victim that almost got away with horrible shit if not for those damn meddlers.

This is why we need to cut regulations, blame all our problems on the press and those truth-and-science loving libs, and all the different looking people that scares us to death because again we are cowardly sacks of shit!
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Accurate.
 
Autodidact

Autodidact

Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,729
CBS tracker has a margin of error of +/- 11 seats and a 78.9% probability of our winning the majority.

230-235 actually sounds about right. I'd like higher, of course, but I think 538 is right on the money with their range. It'll return us to 2006 levels in a much more inhospitable environment. Anything north of 240 would be an amazing, potentially record-setting night.
 
Wilsongt

Wilsongt

Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,507
I won't get excited or hopeful about the Dems taking back the house until after the elections are said and done.

There is going to be ao much fuckery between hacking, rigging, and voter suppression that those numbers are not guaranteed at all.
 
OP
OP
Midnight Jon

Midnight Jon

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,161
Ohio
vanmardigan said:
Next step: add a few folks who think different from you. Too many people lack perspective
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Frum is just about far enough for me to think I'm actually getting perspective and not a raging hateboner for everyone not white and straight and male, I already have more or less the entire left and center

Channel5News said:
|OT8| Truth Isn't Truth
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
unless something incredible pops up in the next couple days, this is probably the title

Autodidact said:
CBS tracker has a margin of error of +/- 11 seats and a 78.9% probability of our winning the majority.

230-235 actually sounds about right. I'd like higher, of course, but I think 538 is right on the money with their range. It'll return us to 2006 levels in a much more inhospitable environment. Anything north of 240 would be an amazing, potentially record-setting night.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
233 means my first guess was 100% dead on

but I want more
 

Deleted member 8257

Oct 26, 2017
24,586
Autodidact said:
CBS tracker has a margin of error of +/- 11 seats and a 78.9% probability of our winning the majority.

230-235 actually sounds about right. I'd like higher, of course, but I think 538 is right on the money with their range. It'll return us to 2006 levels in a much more inhospitable environment. Anything north of 240 would be an amazing, potentially record-setting night.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
How many did R's gain during the infamous "shellacking" of 2010? I just want this to be the biggest tidal wave of past 100 years.
 
Slim Action

Slim Action

Member
Jul 4, 2018
5,574
RustyNails said:
How many did R's gain during the infamous "shellacking" of 2010? I just want this to be the biggest tidal wave of past 100 years.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Av8HoTo.jpg
 

VectorPrime

Banned
Apr 4, 2018
11,781
"Hi, I'm a friendly Black man and I'm offering you the choice of free or heavily subsidized health care."

*largest reactionary political wave in 30 years*
 
ValiantChaos

ValiantChaos

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
1,112
Brian McDoogle said:
63 House seats swung in 2010. Biggest modern Senate swing was 1980 (Good job, Carter/Kennedy) with 12 seats.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_elections_in_the_United_States
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The largest gain of seats in the Senate in history was the 1958 elections where the Democrats gained 13 seats.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_1958

Largest House loss in History is the 1894 Election where the Democrats lost 127! seats followed by the 1932 Elections where Republicans lost 101! seats.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_1894

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_1932
 
Brian McDoogle

Brian McDoogle

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,927
ValiantChaos said:
The largest gain of seats in the Senate in history was the 1958 elections where the Democrats gained 13 seats.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_1958

Largest House loss in History is the 1894 Election where the Democrats lost 127! Seats followed by the 1932 Elections where Republicans lost 101! seats.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_1894
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That's why I said "modern" with the Senate, not historical. I know there are bigger ones, but things have changed since 1894 with our elections, or even 1958.
 
Stinkles

Stinkles

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
20,459
Rand Paul is like a rat trying to get on the sinking ship.

Also Trump's Friday defense of Manafort was all the proof I needed that Trump was never a helpless patsy in over his head. He's certainly way out of his depth but the idea he's unwitting is toast.
 
Ac30

Ac30

Member
Oct 30, 2017
14,527
London
chainlinkspiral said:
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


After Mr. McGahn was initially interviewed by the special counsel's office in November, Mr. Trump's lawyers never asked for a complete description of what Mr. McGahn had said, according to a person close to the president.

Mr. McGahn's lawyer, William A. Burck, gave the president's lawyers a short overview of the interview but few details, and he did not inform them of what Mr. McGahn said in subsequent interactions with the investigators, according to a person close to Mr. Trump. Mr. McGahn and Mr. Burck feared that Mr. Trump was setting up Mr. McGahn to take the blame for any possible wrongdoing, so they embraced the opening to cooperate fully with Mr. Mueller in an effort to demonstrate that Mr. McGahn had done nothing wrong
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

They're so bad at this.

Also, thank God for the free press lmao, worst fucking attorneys
Last fall, Mr. McGahn believed that he was being set up to be blamed for any wrongdoing by the president in part because of an article published in The Times in September, which described a conversation that a reporter had overheard between Mr. Dowd and Mr. Cobb.

In the conversation — which occurred over lunch at a table on the sidewalk outside the Washington steakhouse B.L.T. — Mr. Cobb discussed the White House's production of documents to Mr. Mueller's office. Mr. Cobb talked about how Mr. McGahn was opposed to cooperation and had documents locked in his safe.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
 
BoboBrazil

BoboBrazil

Attempted to circumvent a ban with an alt
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
18,765
I guess that McGahn headline will be good to get other people to open their lips to Mueller at least
 
Amibguous Cad

Amibguous Cad

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,033
Gotchaye said:
I mean, there's clearly something to the idea that free speech rights are implicated in Twitter banning Alex Jones. The retort that free speech is only about protection from the government is just plain silly. It's libertarian nonsense. I'm a liberal, not a libertarian -- I think that exercises of private power can also create injustice. That's why stuff like the '64 Civil Rights Act is so important, since sometimes abuses of private power can be such a problem that they justify government action.

I think almost everyone here would agree that it's a big problem when corporations punish attempts to unionize. Obviously it'd be a huge problem if corporations were cooperating to identify people organizing more broadly for political change the corporations don't like and then making their lives hell. But what is the actual wrong here? It seems to me that it's basically a free speech or free association thing. It's wrong for your boss to try to coerce you into not organizing a union with your fellow employees, because you have a moral right to form a union. It'd be wrong for the people who control most of the country's wealth to use their economic power to punish your attempts to change policies that are benefiting them, because you have a moral right to try to get those policies changed. These aren't violations of the first amendment, but they're infringements of a moral right to actually-not-just-technically free speech.

But as with anything about moral-but-not-legal rights, adjudicating individual cases can get messy. No one really believes in an absolute right to free speech, where it's wrong to ever do anything to disincentivize bad speech. We can and should make distinctions about power imbalances and kinds of speech. And this is where I think Maher and friends are actually going wrong. It would be wrong for Twitter to ban someone just for having unpopular political opinions. But that's not Alex Jones. He slanders people constantly and defrauds his audience. he incites harassment. The justification here isn't "we don't like your speech", it's "your speech is evil". Obviously any time we have to make a judgment like that we need to be sensitive to the possibility that we're only deeming the speech to have crossed a line because that justifies us in going after the speaker, and so we should be err on the side of caution when we draw the line, but Alex Jones is so far from anywhere the line could plausibly be that it's not a tough call. And Alex Jones isn't just anyone, either. He's not being silenced. He's still going to have a massive audience for his crap -- he's not reliant on Twitter for participating in political discourse the way that some other people might be. So Twitter isn't actually doing much to harm him, and his speech should be silenced, so we shouldn't be worried about a lack of respect for substantive free speech in this case. But I don't you can legitimately (and I don't think it's persuasive to) dismiss the idea that there's a worry about free speech here because there just couldn't possibly be a reasonable free speech worry about Twitter banning anyone.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I realize the conversation has probably passed this by, but this post is superb.
 
Sho_Nuff82

Sho_Nuff82

Member
Nov 14, 2017
18,439
John Dean fired back btw:



What a world we live in where the original watergate players are on the sideline saying "You idiots are way worse at this than Nixon."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.