Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

TRUMP TO INFINITY AND BEYOND HQ - The Great Place


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 32.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • knowledge dropper

    2430

  • timschochet

    1791

  • SaintsInDome2006

    1688

  • The General

    1587

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

For anyone who has ever wondered how authoritarians manage to take power in "modern" democracies, here's your first hand evidence that the USA is not immune. Thankfully it appears that the system is h

Following in the footsteps of Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, Friendster, and Google Plus, the Footballguys Forum hereby suspends President Trump's posting privileges. The suspension takes effect immediat

Are we sure it isn't Alamo Landscaping?

1 hour ago, Mr. Ham said:

Exactly. Levees designed for a Cat 4 are getting hit by a Cat 5 and holding. That’s good news, but hardly reassuring. Trump is trying to reverse the results of the election, and would stop at nothing if he could find more co-conspirators as willing to break law as he is. 

Which is what the Democrats were doing for the last 4 years.  I know two wrongs don't make a right (if what Trump did was, indeed, wrong - I doubt it) but this is tone deaf beyond all measure.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Joe Bryant said:

It's more fun to do it this way so everyone can mock. Better to use real links with facts.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/05/politics/trump-georgia-brian-kemp-phone-call/index.html

 

I wrote “asked him to overturn the state results”. The article you linked says “pushing him to convince state legislators to overturn President-Elect Joe Biden’s win.” 
Sorry I’m not seeing a significant difference here. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

Which is what the Democrats were doing for the last 4 years.  I know two wrongs don't make a right (if what Trump did was, indeed, wrong - I doubt it) but this is tone deaf beyond all measure.

The biggest problem with your argument is this: had Trump been impeached and removed during the last 4 years (as I believe he should have been), then Mike Pence would have become President, not Hillary Clinton. So no I don’t believe that Democrats were trying to overturn the election. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

Which is what the Democrats were doing for the last 4 years.  I know two wrongs don't make a right (if what Trump did was, indeed, wrong - I doubt it) but this is tone deaf beyond all measure.

This is false and here is why...no attempt was made to reverse the 2016 election.  Beyond some very fringe claiming as such.  The Mueller investigation and later impeachment are not reversing the results of the election. Neither would have ended with Hillary as President.  It os a completely false statement to claim that for those reasons.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Thunderlips said:

Trump basically admitting he's not going to be in the White House in another few weeks at the GA rally.

He’s progressing through the stages.  I’m glad he’s having fun at his parties.

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

Do you guys oppose a sample signature audit? If so, why?

Seems like the type of thing that can help with credibility and an odd thing to oppose.

I went to vote and did a signature comparison.  The guy told me my old signature was different.  So I gave him a new one that I expect3d matched my old signature.  All good.

had I mailed it in it might not have passed.

I don’t support a sample signature audit as it’s subjective. 

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

Do you guys oppose a sample signature audit? If so, why?

Seems like the type of thing that can help with credibility and an odd thing to oppose.

I don't oppose a signature audit but I also don't support investigations without probable cause. But I'm a stickler for the whole law & order thing.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

Do you guys oppose a sample signature audit? If so, why?

Seems like the type of thing that can help with credibility and an odd thing to oppose.

Not really.  My signature isn't always the same. I wouldn't put it past an overzealous poll worker to try and disqualify me because my C has a bubble at the top in one sig and not in another.  

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Thunderlips said:

Not really.  My signature isn't always the same. I wouldn't put it past an overzealous poll worker to try and disqualify me because my C has a bubble at the top in one sig and not in another.  

I imagine you always dot the i in Thunderlips with a little heart so you should be good.

 

ETA: Appreciate the responses to my question. Honestly not sure how to do an audit fairly (one of the reasons I'm not a fan of mail in ballots). But it does seem like some kind of audit would help restore confidence.

Edited by NorvilleBarnes
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

 But it does seem like some kind of audit would help restore confidence.

I don’t agree. The people who lack confidence want Trump to win. There is no audit or hearing or investigation that will restore their confidence unless the result is that Trump won. Otherwise lthey will simply believe that the audit itself was corrupt. 
It was the same with the Warren Commission that investigated JFK’s death: those that established it thought that a thorough investigation would convince conspiracy theorists that Oswald was in fact the shooter. But all it did was make the Warren Commission part of the conspiracy theory. There is NO way to debunk a conspiracy theory.  

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I don’t agree. The people who lack confidence want Trump to win. There is no audit or hearing or investigation that will restore their confidence unless the result is that Trump won. Otherwise lthey will simply believe that the audit itself was corrupt. 
It was the same with the Warren Commission that investigated JFK’s death: those that established it thought that a thorough investigation would convince conspiracy theorists that Oswald was in fact the shooter. But all it did was make the Warren Commission part of the conspiracy theory. There is NO way to debunk a conspiracy theory.  

Well I guess we won't know until we try, correct?  I mean, everyone should be for fair and transparent elections and ballot processing, right?

I mean, the government waste all kind of money on a irrelevant crap. This seems like a good investment.  We could put all that money that we're defunding from the police into something like this.  Seems like a win-win, no? Your side gets to defund police AND you get to prove that the elections aren't being stolen.

Seems to me that If people like you are so sure the election was on the up and up, then you would have no problem with something like this.

 

Edited by BladeRunner
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

Well I guess we won't know until we try, correct?  I mean, everyone should be for fair and transparent elections and ballot processing, right?

I mean, the government waste all kind of money on a irrelevant crap. This seems like a good investment.  We could put all that money that we're defunding from the police into something like this.  Seems like a win-win, no? Your side gets to defund police AND you get to prove that the elections aren't being stolen.

Seems to me that If people like you are so sure the election was on the up and up, then you would have no problem with something like this.

 

I don’t have any problem with it. I never said I would. 
I was disagreeing with the idea that it will restore confidence in those who currently lack it. It won’t. But I’m not opposed to it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Mr. Ham said:

I’m grateful we don’t have a norm of doing what Trump is doing because it’s a cancer, but had Gore and Kerry gone to the mat, there was actual wrongdoing in those elections. In 2000, hundreds of thousands of votes were disenfranchised by Katherine Harris in FL, and 2004 came down to Ohio and an AG who led Bush’s reelection campaign in the state amongst shenanigans. So whatever is alleged in 2020 is pittance compared to previous cycles where our country didn’t sit in tender hooks waiting for elections to be settled by audits and litigation. (I realize 2000 was settled by the Supreme Court, but Gore didn’t contest the result as he could have more reasonably than Trump. Also, 9/11 report cited friction in the transition as a contributor to diminished national security and the attacks.)

yeah, more gas lighting from you. I find it funny that the only fraud is an elections were the ones where Democrats lost.  But this election? Oh my God it's the fairest election ever!

Give me a break.  You're being so dishonest it's not even funny at this point.

Edited by BladeRunner
Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, timschochet said:

There is no audit or hearing or investigation that will restore their confidence unless the result is that Trump won. Otherwise lthey will simply believe that the audit itself was corrupt. 
It was the same with the Warren Commission that investigated JFK’s death: those that established it thought that a thorough investigation would convince conspiracy theorists that Oswald was in fact the shooter. But all it did was make the Warren Commission part of the conspiracy theory. There is NO way to debunk a conspiracy theory.  

I disagree. I'd like to see an audit myself and your comments about JFKs death seem completely irrelevant (and equally untrue).

 

1 minute ago, timschochet said:

Also stop with the “my side wants to defund the police” please. Nobody whom I voted for is in favor of that. 

 

For someone who paints with extremely broad brushes, you always seem to want a little more detail for yourself.

  • Like 1
  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Mr. Ham said:

I’m grateful we don’t have a norm of doing what Trump is doing because it’s a cancer, but had Gore and Kerry gone to the mat, there was actual wrongdoing in those elections. In 2000, hundreds of thousands of votes were disenfranchised by Katherine Harris in FL, and 2004 came down to Ohio and an AG who led Bush’s reelection campaign in the state amongst shenanigans. So whatever is alleged in 2020 is pittance compared to previous cycles where our country didn’t sit in tender hooks waiting for elections to be settled by audits and litigation. (I realize 2000 was settled by the Supreme Court, but Gore didn’t contest the result as he could have more reasonably than Trump. Also, 9/11 report cited friction in the transition as a contributor to diminished national security and the attacks.)

Irregularities in previous elections seem to make the case FOR the possibility in this one, not against it.

Also your comments about 9/11 seem completely irrelevant (and untrue).

  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

Do you guys oppose a sample signature audit? If so, why?

Seems like the type of thing that can help with credibility and an odd thing to oppose.

When this is done are we done or will there be the next simple thing?

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, JAA said:

When this is done are we done or will there be the next simple thing?

It certainly can't hurt if we try, but sure, if my confidence can be restored then we can be done.

but on the same token, if it turns out there is massive fraud going on then you have to admit that we need to have better protections in voting and in the counting process and not complain about it.

I speak for America by the way!

Edited by BladeRunner
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JAA said:

When this is done are we done or will there be the next simple thing?

I guess it would depend on the outcome of the audit right?

I don't want to get a time out - but THEORETICALLY just for the sake of discussion - if an audit uncovered illegal ballots, would you want them counted?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, NorvilleBarnes said:

I guess it would depend on the outcome of the audit right?

I don't want to get a time out - but THEORETICALLY just for the sake of discussion - if an audit uncovered illegal ballots, would you want them counted?

So then what other posters are saying is true. You will only be happy when the result is you win.  One of my mantras is to never reward bad behavior.  That being the case, the answer is no as you are not acting in good faith.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, JAA said:

So then what other posters are saying is true. You will only be happy when the result is you win.  One of my mantras is to never reward bad behavior.  That being the case, the answer is no as you are not acting in good faith.

I think you misinterpreted his post.  he wasn't saying that he would only do that if the outcome was favorable to him.  

clearly this subject would not be put to bed if there was indeed massive fraud going on so you can't be done with it like you want.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mr. Ham said:

My argument is that continuity is more important than scorched earth until you find an angle where you win. Teams leave the field after the championship even if there were terrible calls. 

Thank you for your honesty Mr. Ham. I have a feeling you speak for many on the left.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, BladeRunner said:

If you want to have a debate, be honest and fair and stop gaslighting.  And I don't think you know what "abuse of power" really means.

... says the person that likes to throw around, "defund the police" without having a clue what that means.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

Do you guys oppose a sample signature audit? If so, why?

Seems like the type of thing that can help with credibility and an odd thing to oppose.

Yes. Because the guy in charge of the voting in Georgia (a Republican) said it was a fair and free election, and the ballots have been separated from the signature so an audit would be impossible. 
 

Your guy lost, nationally by a substantial margin. Give it up, this is embarrassing. 

  • Like 12
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BoltBacker said:

... says the person that likes to throw around, "defund the police" without having a clue what that means.

Huh?  It's pretty self explanatory.  There really is no other meaning.  There is no way to misconstrue what that means.

I have ZERO idea what it could alternatively mean but I'm excited to hear why you think "defund the police" doesn't actually mean what it really means in it's LITERAL translation.  Because that is what they are LITERALLY calling for. And if you think that's not true then let me point you to Minneapolis as one example.

I mean, seriously, I had to chuckle at your post because it sounded so absurd. 

And where do you come off saying I'm throwing it around? I think I've only mentioned it once.

Edited by BladeRunner
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, NorvilleBarnes said:
7 hours ago, timschochet said:

Also stop with the “my side wants to defund the police” please. Nobody whom I voted for is in favor of that. 

For someone who paints with extremely broad brushes, you always seem to want a little more detail for yourself.

Well, the way timschochet phrased this, it's a pretty small brush.  I suspect he only voted for 6 or so candidates.  My state didn't have a Senate election this year, so I voted for 4 or 5, depending on whether you count Biden and Harris as 1 candidate or 2.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Capella said:

Yes. Because the guy in charge of the voting in Georgia (a Republican) said it was a fair and free election...

 

Brad Raffensperger was facing calls to resign by the DNC after bungling the primaries in June. Georgia, under his watch, rolled out a 107 million dollar new Dominion system and rushed it in despite massive legal conflict where it was slammed forward by Judge Amy Totenberg who is a Obama/DNC loyalist, replacing the previous 30 million dollar system, where everyone complained that there would not be enough time to train people to use them properly. This is after DNC power players Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar, POTUS contenders, went publicly to denounce the integrity/security of Dominion systems and lent accusations of Raffensperger engaging in voter suppression based on constant breakdowns of the new DVS units.

Then you have close to 120K contestable votes (dead people, felons, underage, etc) WITHOUT even beginning  the discussion of signature matching and a hard count of envelopes to ballots and WITHOUT dealing with the video showing four people shoving in votes when observers were gone creating a 98 percent "for Biden" vote drop that DEFIES ALL KNOWN UNDERSTANDING OF MATHEMATICAL AND STATISTICAL REALITY.

https://billmoyers.com/story/georgias-hand-count-of-2020-ballots-was-no-risk-limiting-audit/

Then Raffensperger does not choose a recount nor an actual risk limiting audit, which are Georgia election guidelines, to the criticism of the guy who created the RLA system in the first place and has come out and said there is no evidence this is a "fair and free election", but then Genius Brad selects a hybrid system that has no actual legal basis.

This in the backdrop of Stacey Abrams, after a failed and contested run for Governor, barnstorming up to 850,000 new voters to register amid claims spin off groups under her and Ralph Warnock's control are engaging in voter registration fraud (i.e. over 60K underage registered and voted).

So Raffensperger's investigators from the SOS office, under the pressure to save their own jobs and Raffensperger's career from going up in total flames, say "No, no, no, nothing is wrong"

Brad Raffensperger is trying to save his own hide. His partisan leanings are now irrelevant. Both Trump and Governor Kemp want to lay the entire blame on him and the entire DNC can't avoid the reality that they called for his head themselves but are only staying silent now since the numbers favor Biden currently.

Wait, I interrupted you, you were saying something about a "free and fair election"

Go on, item by item from above in clear conflict, unpack how you can resolve all of that to call this a free and fair election in Georgia.

Let me also point out, in order to do this, you'd have to violate and rewrite the history of mathematics and statistics across all of recorded human history. You'd win a Nobel Prize (multiple) and then be considered a threat to national security (cryptography) for every nuclear power on the face of the Earth.

Go on, Chris, we are all waiting here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Mr. Ham said:

Say we had a very popular cult leader (not Trump) calling governors and holding rallies ginning up followers based in claims God has elected him as President. Say that was gaining some momentum and rhetoric was turning violent, and sorry I have to write this, but in this hypothetical God did not elect him (there was an actual election,) what’s the remedy?

  • Would leaders start to speak out?
  • Would police and national guard be called?
  • At what point would the dangers of this be recognized and acted upon?
  • What would or should be done?

If you're not talking about Trump, you should probably start a new thread for this hypothetical. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, BladeRunner said:

yeah, more gas lighting from you. I find it funny that the only fraud is an elections were the ones where Democrats lost.  But this election? Oh my God it's the fairest election ever!

Give me a break.  You're being so dishonest it's not even funny at this point.

"It's Not What You Know.....It's What You Can Prove" - Alonzo Harris

 

I'm fine with the election timeline running this year as it should and, in 5-10 years from now, when real, in depth analysis is conducted showing that Trump actually had a case, admitting that I was wrong.  Mr. Ham is right in the sense(paraphrasing and expanding on his point) that while Republicans cry to the heavens in regards to voter fraud election night and post election....they often conviently look a blind eye to voter fraud pre-election. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Mr. Ham said:

Also, please remember I voted for Trump in 2016, and could care less about any political era over the overarching principles, laws, and ethical behaviors that ensure that system continues.

Thanks for the reminder.  I’m glad that you are apparently anti-Trump now, but it’s mind boggling to me that you fell for his con in the first place. 

Why do you think you made such a poor choice that helped lead to what we are dealing with now?

  • Thanks 1
  • Thinking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Capella said:

Yes. Because the guy in charge of the voting in Georgia (a Republican) said it was a fair and free election, and the ballots have been separated from the signature so an audit would be impossible. 
 

Your guy lost, nationally by a substantial margin. Give it up, this is embarrassing. 

This.

 

This isn't even remotely the case in 2000, where a single partisan woman in a state whose Governor was the Republican POTUS' brother controlled the narrative.  There are a number of Republicans at high levels of this voting situation, including several judges appointed by Trump who are all saying the same thing.  

And if the depth of the "conspiracy" is still that bad (Republican politicians and Trump appointed judges) after 4 years of Trump exposing it....do you really trust him to uproot it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, tommyGunZ said:

Thanks for the reminder.  I’m glad that you are apparently anti-Trump now, but it’s mind boggling to me that you fell for his con in the first place. 

Why do you think you made such a poor choice that helped lead to what we are dealing with now?

As someone who wasn’t anti Trump in 2016 and voted for neither he nor Clinton, I can chime in.  My 2016 vote was more about being angry at our current political climate and less about the candidates. I was angry and the political machines (Clinton’s) and the moral high ground of the D’s and then the gerrymandering and IMO unethical conduct of the R’s.  That’s why I voted for neither.

I was wrong 

I had no idea how bad Trump could be. If I could go back in time I would change my vote to Hilary. Not because she would have been a good president, I don’t think she would be. I think she would have been the second most pompous president next to Trump. She also would continue to build the Clinton foundation which leaves a lot to be desired. However, she would not have set back out democracy 20-30 years. Yes, Rs would be angry and yes there would be a pendulum swing, but nothing as bad as Trump.  I think that would have been the better play for our country  

Here is my commitment going forward to the RNC - give me any reasonable candidate. Anyone who isn’t a narcissistic sociopath and I will vote for them. I’m fine with a R president for the rest of my lifetime* if it isn’t Trump or his ilk and then senate and the house are D controlled.
 

* - what the R’s did with SCOTUS was not cool and needs to be fixed  

 

Edited by JAA
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Joe Bryant said:

And let's be real, we're not talking "trust" in the sense of letting someone watch your children. Or to repay you money. The "stakes" are pretty low in we're trusting the person to be cool. And to de-escalate the rancor. If they betray that trust, the worst we are off is back to where we are already. There's not a lot at risk. 

But I think it takes trust. 

I agree with a lot of what you say about trust, but I think your privilege is showing here.  There isn’t much risk foe folks like you and I, but that’s not the case for many people who don’t look like us and people who aren’t as set socio-economically.  There is a lot at risk for people of color, people living at the margins, women, etc., and that is why you see the extremely raw and emotional pushback against Trumpism.

Is this one of those times in our countries history where the rancor and pushback are warranted?  I generally lean toward no but the more I see 70 million people supporting a fascist who is attempting to overturn our election, I wonder if the ugliness we are seeing will be viewed as heroic in history books.  🤷‍♂️ 

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, tommyGunZ said:

I agree with a lot of what you say about trust, but I think your privilege is showing here.  There isn’t much risk foe folks like you and I, but that’s not the case for many people who don’t look like us and people who aren’t as set socio-economically.  There is a lot at risk for people of color, people living at the margins, women, etc., and that is why you see the extremely raw and emotional pushback against Trumpism.

Is this one of those times in our countries history where the rancor and pushback are warranted?  I generally lean toward no but the more I see 70 million people supporting a fascist who is attempting to overturn our election, I wonder if the ugliness we are seeing will be viewed as heroic in history books.  🤷‍♂️ 

For sure it's easier for me to trust. I would assume that's understood by everyone. 

It's also important to understand what I wrote. As I said, I'm not talking about trusting someone to watch your kids or repay you money. I'm talking about trust in how we talk to each other. That's low risk. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, JAA said:

As someone who wasn’t anti Trump in 2016 and voted for neither he nor Clinton, I can chime in.  My 2016 vote was more about being angry at our current political climate and less about the candidates. I was angry and the political machines (Clinton’s) and the moral high ground of the D’s and then the gerrymandering and IMO unethical conduct of the R’s.  That’s why I voted for neither.

I was wrong 

I had no idea how bad Trump could be. If I could go back in time I would change my vote to Hilary. Not because she would have been a good president, I don’t think she would be. I think she would have been the second most pompous president next to Trump. She also would continue to build the Clinton foundation which leaves a lot to be desired. However, she would not have set back out democracy 20-30 years. Yes, Rs would be angry and yes there would be a pendulum swing, but nothing as bad as Trump.  I think that would have been the better play for our country  

Here is my commitment going forward to the RNC - give me any reasonable candidate. Anyone who isn’t a narcissistic sociopath and I will vote for them. I’m fine with a R president for the rest of my lifetime* if it isn’t Trump or his ilk and then senate and the house are D controlled.
 

* - what the R’s did with SCOTUS was not cool and needs to be fixed  

 

Thanks for the thoughtful post JAA.  I wish more folks were like you in the Republican Party these days. 
My only question is why you don’t hold any other Republican (other than Trump) responsible for the dumpster fire we are seeing now?  You say you’d vote for any reasonable candidate, yet virtually the entire party has actively supported and continued to support Trumpism for the last 4 years.  Is Marco Rubio reasonable?  I would have said yes 4 years ago, but not after seeing him kiss Trumps ring for 4 years.  
 

 

Edited by tommyGunZ
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

For sure it's easier for me to trust. I would assume that's understood by everyone. 

It's also important to understand what I wrote. As I said, I'm not talking about trusting someone to watch your kids or repay you money. I'm talking about trust in how we talk to each other. That's low risk. 

Do you really think privilege is understood by everyone?  My experience has been the opposite.  So many folks like you and I Joe refuse to admit or acknowledge their good fortune, which of course includes being white and male in America. 

I 100% agree with you in regard to bringing back civility.  

  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

For sure it's easier for me to trust. I would assume that's understood by everyone. 

It's also important to understand what I wrote. As I said, I'm not talking about trusting someone to watch your kids or repay you money. I'm talking about trust in how we talk to each other. That's low risk. 

I don't think that's trust. That's civility. You don't need to trust someone to be civil to them. Trust implies a much greater degree of familiarity, intent, and there's also a power relationship involved that isn't part of civility.

Edited by Gr00vus
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

For sure it's easier for me to trust. I would assume that's understood by everyone. 

It's also important to understand what I wrote. As I said, I'm not talking about trusting someone to watch your kids or repay you money. I'm talking about trust in how we talk to each other. That's low risk. 

True...especially in response to a "well, we will just wait to be nice til the next Republican POTUS to see if Dems will be nice"...a notion that would ensure another 4 years minimum of vitriol and division.  (Which is obviously what you do not want...I think many of us do not want that).

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Mr. Ham said:

2026: I never would have selected Trump or Hillary as stewards of our representative system of government. I was also in a state already decided for Trump.

I was extremely torn, and was leaning to hold my nose and vote Hillary—which I almost assuredly would have done if I lived in a swing state.

Within a few hours of when I voted early, tone deaf Hillary campaign announced that it had planned a fireworks show at the Javitz Center for her presumed win. (This was later cancelled, but after I voted.) This act of hubris, coupled with fact my wife and in laws voted for Hillary, pushed me over the edge and I voted Republican all the way down the ticket. My thinking, presuming Hillary would win, was I wanted a balance of power because I recognized that her agenda and campaign and entirely and arrogantly looked past “flyover America.”

I also thought America might need a dose of reality to remind it that we must tend to our system lest it take us undesirable places, so thought Trump might wake people up to re-engage and pay attention. The five million or so who marched in January sort of validated this. 

However, I did not think he’d win the election.

After the election, I was squarely in the “give Trump a chance” camp. 

As I’ve said before, I would not repeat my choice because I vastly underestimated his brazenness and the complicity of Congress to abandon cherished norms in an attempt to gain a permanent majority.

And I would not have made the same choices in a swing state. 

I never, ever would have selected Trump as a viable political candidate, but that’s what happened. And I made a choice that was inconsequential, but I still regret it. 

Will note that my “give Trump a chance” stance melted entirely after reading the first 70 pages of the Trump/Russia thread in February of 2017, when I realized (and it was subsequently confirmed in the Mueller Report) that Trump’s campaign worked unethically with foreign actors to push disinformation, and that it had engaged in other un-American fraud. 

Four years later, here we are. And if you watched the video opening Trump’s rally yesterday, it’s a monster truck rally dystopian hellscape. I want things to normalize.

Thanks Ham. I’ve always been a fan of you personally even though we often disagree politically.  This is another time where we disagree.  You vote is never “inconsequential”.  There are many ways to express your regret that Hillary Clinton was the Democratic nominee. Vote for a 3rd party.  Don’t vote at all.  Leave the Presidential vote blank, and vote down ticket only. Voting for Trump should never have been on the table.  Let’s be clear, it’s not just votes in swing states that count. EVERY vote counts.  You will forever be one of the 64.5M people who actively voted for Trump in 2016.  Those aggregate vote totals matter.  If Trump had lost the popular vote by 10M or 15M, he would have been much further constrained and who know where we would be now. But you didn’t just actively support Trump, you went far above and beyond by voting Republican straight ticket, helping support his enablers and those at the state and local level who are now full fledged Trumpists.  You sent a signal to the Republican Party that not only do you support Trump, but you were doing everything possible with your vote to completely support his agenda and those implementing it.

Again, I’m glad you are now anti-Trump. It is difficult for humans to admit they are wrong, so I applaud you for that. I would ask that you continue to reflect on that decision, because it still sounds like you believe a lot of the anti-Hillary nonsense from 2016 that helped you rationalize such a poor choice. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Mr. Ham said:

Much of my political thinking is guided by being able to look people in the eye. I mentioned my gay and lesbian friends. Same is true with minorities I know. I live in an area with a large Asian population (mostly Chinese and Indian tech workers.) Woman I’d see everyday at my kid’s bus stop was confronted in a Home Depot and told to get the f out of the country. I want it know to her, and my other friends and acquaintances, that I wasn’t ambiguous in this era. I was against it: the shady politics, the charged rhetoric, the rallying around inequity.

Much of my reaction comes from the simple fact that when measured by suffering of people, most quite unlike me, what I observe coming from Trumpism is wrong.

This is a fantastic post.  I agree 💯 Ham.  You’re a good dude.  👍

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, tommyGunZ said:


My only question is why you don’t hold any other Republican (other than Trump) responsible for the dumpster fire we are seeing now?  You say you’d vote for any reasonable candidate, yet virtually the entire party has actively supported and continued to support Trumpism for the last 4 years.  Is Marco Rubio reasonable?  I would have said yes 4 years ago, but not after seeing him kiss Trumps ring for 4 years.  
 

 

We all know why they acted like this. Just as back in the day when Joe McCarthy was Senator, Republicans in Congress either went along or shut up about it. Because they’re terrified of the base. 
A majority of Republican voters believed in the Birther nonsense. A majority of Republican voters believe this election was stolen from President Trump. So the politicians, who know better, feel they have to go along or they will be primaried by Qanon replacements. 

Edited by timschochet
Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, tommyGunZ said:

Do you really think privilege is understood by everyone?  My experience has been the opposite.  So many folks like you and I Joe refuse to admit or acknowledge their good fortune, which of course includes being white and male in America. 

I 100% agree with you in regard to bringing back civility.  

Most everyone on this forum, yes. Overall, I"m sure less. 

Most everyone of my real life friends that are white and male would say of course they have had some advantages. And they've worked their butts off from there. And I'd completely agree. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Joe Bryant said:

Most everyone on this forum, yes. 

I strongly strongly disagree with you. I can’t count the number of arguments and debates I’ve had in this forum over the years about whether or not white privilege is real or just a liberal fantasy. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...