420chan now has a web-based IRC client available, right here
Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
Name
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the float Name#Password
Comment
[*]Italic Text[/*]
[**]Bold Text[/**]
[~]Taimapedia Article[/~]
[%]Spoiler Text[/%]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace text[/pre]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists
File

Sandwich


Community Updates

420chan now supports HTTPS! If you find any issues, you may report them in this thread
Pennsylvania Republican launches effort to impeach state supreme court to save GOP gerrymander by Alice Gonderton - Wed, 07 Feb 2018 17:42:24 EST ID:S537Nai7 No.165511 Ignore Report Quick Reply
File: 1518043344271.jpg -(19443B / 18.99KB, 500x380) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 19443
>https://thinkprogress.org/pennsylvania-republican-launches-effort-to-impeach-state-supreme-court-to-save-gop-gerrymander-408544a51b96/

>PA GOP creates gerrymandered districts that allow them to get 2/3rds of the seats even though there's a near 50/50 split between democrats and republicans in the state
>PA supreme court rules that the districts are illegal and orders them to rewrite them
>PA GOP appeals to federal Supreme court
>Federal supreme court says GTFO this is a state matter
>PA GOP decides they'll just impeach all the justices who voted against their gerrymandered districts

Even for republicans this is bad. Jesus fucking christ.
>>
David Sezzlewater - Wed, 07 Feb 2018 17:53:14 EST ID:o4BwxZhq No.165512 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165511
And keep in mind, they are to be impeached (and yes, this will happen...Trump runs the country now,) for simply doing their job.

They are trying something similar in Nevada, where they are trying to recall two state senators. Why? Because they are Dems. That is all. No other reason. Just because the GOP wants a mulligan. This too, will probably work.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/07/politics/nevada-senate-recall/index.html
>>
Oliver Fancocke - Wed, 07 Feb 2018 17:55:42 EST ID:1OGQdYrj No.165513 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165512
Democrats need to be more cutthroat if they want to survive
>>
Nell Sivingshit - Wed, 07 Feb 2018 18:52:12 EST ID:WXUWSia2 No.165514 Ignore Report Quick Reply
This is going to get greased Lighning'd to the Supreme Court. Thats going to be the real battle.
>>
Henry Duckledale - Wed, 07 Feb 2018 19:02:21 EST ID:YahUqC4L No.165516 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165511
Yet another example of republican fascism and disregarding of laws and rules. They don't want the law to apply to themselves, just everybody else, even when they're caught red-handed.
>>
Nigel Sunderfone - Wed, 07 Feb 2018 19:20:29 EST ID:o4BwxZhq No.165519 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165516
and we got a minimum of 7 more years of this shit to slog our fucking way through....
>>
Cyril Smallfuck - Thu, 08 Feb 2018 00:05:51 EST ID:Nyq/4TP3 No.165523 Ignore Report Quick Reply
-_-; what a load of shit
>>
Eliza Bidgebanks - Thu, 08 Feb 2018 10:28:45 EST ID:ojjwPRrO No.165524 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165519
>minimum of 7 more years
i mean i really don't...
>I o4BwxZhq
ah, carry on.
>>
Nigel Sunderfone - Thu, 08 Feb 2018 11:21:43 EST ID:o4BwxZhq No.165526 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165524
Trump's numbers are now close to 50%. Tell me how a guy who won with 48% of the vote isn't within striking distance with those numbers?

There will be no "blue wave." Things are too gerrymandered and fucked up. Even if there is, they will just pull a N. Carolina. People need to get real about what is happening here. The GOP is now a Fascist organization bent on gaining total power through any means necessary.
>>
James Sullerdale - Thu, 08 Feb 2018 13:03:56 EST ID:KjdZJ104 No.165527 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165526
lol wut
>>
Nigel Sunderfone - Thu, 08 Feb 2018 14:18:34 EST ID:o4BwxZhq No.165528 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165527
Google is your friend. Check what they did in N. Carolina. Look at the articles mentioned here. The GOP is now looking to use any and all means to become the sole political party in the US. Pretty fucking fascist.
>>
Polly Pockworth - Thu, 08 Feb 2018 14:52:16 EST ID:YkrHf5ld No.165529 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165528
I think you mean totalitarian. But that's wrong too.
>>
Nigel Sunderfone - Thu, 08 Feb 2018 15:04:55 EST ID:o4BwxZhq No.165530 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165529
So what is the correct term for this? They certainly seem to have abandoned democracy as a method to get into power.
>>
James Sullerdale - Thu, 08 Feb 2018 15:11:28 EST ID:KjdZJ104 No.165531 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165530
bro take a step back and calm down.
>>
James Sullerdale - Thu, 08 Feb 2018 15:34:40 EST ID:KjdZJ104 No.165532 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165530

Both repubs and democrats do shady things, both democrats and republicans have hard working patriotic people in their ranks. Dont gloss over one side out of tribalism. I say this as a 3 time democrat voter.

If we as dems wanna win 2018 and 2020, we need to stop cannibalizing ourselves first of all, and second have to have an actual platform with a good candidate thats not just ''fuck trump and the gop''
>>
Cyril Smallfuck - Thu, 08 Feb 2018 17:11:09 EST ID:Nyq/4TP3 No.165534 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165530

plutocracy
>>
Archie Ninnerchid - Thu, 08 Feb 2018 18:12:58 EST ID:kFmX3/Gj No.165535 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165532
Or just go with a different party, nothing says you have to vote democrat or republican and enough people dismissing a third party as an option ensures that politics will be a 2 party monopoly, and the only way to win at that game is to have all the money and fuck everyone else over. Those hardworking patriots could put their foot down and collectively vote for their own self interest and the interest of their neighbors instead of what a literal dick in a guided tower wants, otherwise they are just pissing in the wind and crying that their pants are wet.
>>
Nigel Sunderfone - Thu, 08 Feb 2018 18:38:31 EST ID:o4BwxZhq No.165537 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165531
Fuck you. These "impeachments," are blatant attempts by the GOP to overthrow duly appointed justices. So is the recall effort in Nevada. Invalidating the election of your opposition is straight from the Dictator's Handbook....
>>
Nathaniel Hannerset - Thu, 08 Feb 2018 19:26:04 EST ID:4ob9oL20 No.165538 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165530
I think the term is "evil"
>>
Polly Bunhall - Thu, 08 Feb 2018 20:01:13 EST ID:O7R8jdys No.165540 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165532
>Both repubs and democrats do shady things,

Yes, but be careful against employing the middle-ground fallacy. They aren't equally shady. Gerrymandering and voter suppression, for example, are a majority GOP issue. When's the last time we've heard of the Supreme Court going after a blue state based on voting rights concerns?

But not to detract too much from the heart of what you say, yes, we shouldn't gloss over the shady dealings of Dems. It's just important to realize the spectrum is quite different.

>we need to stop cannibalizing ourselves first of all

We keep attacking each other for not being liberal enough. Creating splinter groups of splinter groups. The Bernie Bros. The Russia Story Dems fighting with DNC only story Dems. I agree; We need less Koch Bros democrats, and more progressives, but we need to be pragmatic also.
>>
Fuck Turveyridge - Thu, 08 Feb 2018 22:15:58 EST ID:tlilhxRg No.165544 Ignore Report Quick Reply
To play Devils Advocate, the Republicans ARE on a dying platform. They're all extinct in 25 years, because the only people that will care about fucking Jesus then will be either black or hispanic.

The Republicans put all their money on the Christian nutcase ship, in an age when everyone is using fucking planes and rockets.
>>
Fuck Turveyridge - Thu, 08 Feb 2018 22:17:56 EST ID:tlilhxRg No.165545 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165544
Hit reply too soon. They need gerrymandering and voter suppression to survive, because they bet on the wrong horse and they're all going extinct.
>>
George Shittingshit - Fri, 09 Feb 2018 00:46:35 EST ID:ojjwPRrO No.165546 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165535
except voting 3rd party necessarily means taking away votes from the "lesser" of two evils. the problem is first past the post system. it neccesarily emtails an "us vs them" system. without changing the system this won't change.
>>
Wesley Goodwill - Fri, 09 Feb 2018 07:59:56 EST ID:Nyq/4TP3 No.165547 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165535

nigga doesnt know about queen lion
>>
Polly Dartdale - Fri, 09 Feb 2018 13:27:06 EST ID:8c32w9KN No.165552 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165546
Well, we can't go to the polls in November and vote to change our voting system.

Until then, you can vote your conscience, hope the party you voted for gets passed the threshold needed for public funding and takes enough votes away from mainstream parties that they take notice and adopt some of those third party's platforms, or you can continue the status quo...
>>
Augustus Harrystutch - Fri, 09 Feb 2018 13:49:58 EST ID:o4BwxZhq No.165553 Ignore Report Quick Reply
The only immediate solution to Trump is to vote Dem. There just isn't time to build up a third party to the point where they could take out Trump.

Even then, like I have said before, Trump may just break all the rules and start invalidating elections. He has hinted at this in speeches. In which case, better learn to shoot a gun, war is a coming....
>>
Walter Fazzlewater - Fri, 09 Feb 2018 15:08:09 EST ID:w9cLgcCZ No.165555 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165511
I was expecting it to be some sensationalist article but reading that was genuinely stomach-turning. The things Republicans will do to dismantle our democracy at every opportunity is unsettling.
>>
Eugene Crerringfield - Fri, 09 Feb 2018 15:08:49 EST ID:KjdZJ104 No.165556 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165553
war is not coming. Trump is not going to do those things. Even if he did there still wouldnt be a war. stop saying shit like this it makes you look like a jackass
>>
Edwin Grimridge - Fri, 09 Feb 2018 16:51:14 EST ID:YahUqC4L No.165557 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165556
This sounds suspiciously like you're defending trump, and denying his track record for undermining democracy.
>>
Eugene Blesslemut - Fri, 09 Feb 2018 16:51:38 EST ID:w5zsbI9Q No.165558 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165553
>The only immediate solution to Trump is to vote progressive populist in the Dem primaries[/b] so they don't get wiped out in the generals like the last few batches of retards did
Fix'd
>>
Augustus Harrystutch - Fri, 09 Feb 2018 17:38:55 EST ID:o4BwxZhq No.165560 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165558
Fair fix.
Sadly, the Schumer Left is looking to just lurch further right-ward in the hopes that they will all of a sudden start appealing to the shit heels.
>>
Phineas Nasslekatch - Sat, 10 Feb 2018 11:00:13 EST ID:ojjwPRrO No.165567 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165552
so what if the alternative to the status quo is something worse? because it is, and we're seeing it. hillary would have been the epitome of maintaining the shitty status quo. so why in hell would you vote for her? i mean how could the alternative possibl - and then it hits you.

it can always be worse.

and that's how they keep getting you to vote for these scumbags. by presenting an even more awful choice that has a realistic chance.

this is also one of the reasons vitriolic partisan politics pays. be reinforcing your awareness of just how shttier things can be.

just urging people to vote third party is no going to work. there's simply too much risk in doing so to sway a large enough group. we first need to change the system through, for instance, interstate compacts.
>>
Reuben Gannerlone - Sat, 10 Feb 2018 11:59:42 EST ID:kFmX3/Gj No.165568 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165553
That's the problem. You're end game is spiting A by choosing B. There are avenues to make a C, and they are hard and won't be super effective at spiting A or B to begin with, but the end game there is having an option C to choose, and making it clear that if they don't work in our interest we will choose option D.
>>
Reuben Gannerlone - Sat, 10 Feb 2018 12:00:19 EST ID:kFmX3/Gj No.165569 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165568
*Your end game

fucking wake and bake.
>>
Priscilla Snodcocke - Sat, 10 Feb 2018 13:37:49 EST ID:KjdZJ104 No.165573 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165557

Jesus Christ no, this is the fucking problem right here. If you look at my previous posts its obvious im not.

Im defending our system of checks and balances. I get this IRL and it just happened again here. Any dissent from ''TRUMP IS A MEGA RETARD WHO WILL START WW3 LITERALLY HITLER'' and its ''defending trump''.

Im a democrat, ive voted democrat for 3 presidential and congressional cycles. I'm totally for bashing Trump when it is right to do so.

Im against making outrages claims and appeals to emotion. Trump isnt going to invalidate elections and he isnt going to cause a civil war in America.

This shit really gets under my skin because I feel ostracized by MY OWN PARTY, not just here but in real life also, because I disagree with radical statements made by people on the left, so therefore im a Trump supporter.

Cmon guys. Fuckin please. Stop.
>>
Priscilla Snodcocke - Sat, 10 Feb 2018 13:48:03 EST ID:KjdZJ104 No.165575 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165574

thank you for saying this man. I am so frustrated by this you have no idea. I wanna feel like im not alone on this
>>
Henry Peffingbury - Sat, 10 Feb 2018 14:25:24 EST ID:w9cLgcCZ No.165579 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1518290724290.png -(85351B / 83.35KB, 1438x852) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>165574
>I'm fairly liberal and I agree with this assessment. Know your enemy. I'm a big fan of jordan peterson for this manufactured outrage.

I'm fairly left-wing and progressive and also a Peterson supporter. To me it looks like the SJW crowd is just the bottom of the intellectual barrel, top of the moral high ground.

As much as I hate the things Trump does and says, I see utterly brainless things coming from left-wing nutjobs all the time (to the extent that it hurts their own goals by alienating people). And it feels like I'm alone in that assessment.
>>
Phyllis Burrylork - Sat, 10 Feb 2018 14:46:04 EST ID:o4BwxZhq No.165580 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165573
You sound like a Schumer Dem.

"It ain't THAT bad...so what if the GOP is impeaching judges and rigging elections. It will be fine."

It won't be fine, dude.
>>
Priscilla Snodcocke - Sat, 10 Feb 2018 15:08:23 EST ID:KjdZJ104 No.165584 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165580

Schumer Dem... ??

Wat.

It wont be fine? Rigging elections what? I never said anything about rigging elections. I cant help but think you're trolling or dont have simple reading comprehension?

Jerrymandering is a thing and has been for a long time. Its shitty and erodes our democracy, it would be best to root it out. Pretty sure we can agree on this. Atleast thats what i think you meant with ''rigging elections''

You can be chicken little if you want, and cry civil war and fascism and rigged elections but I want you to know it doesnt help our side one fuckin bit. You push more people to the right every day with your attitude.
>>
Ernest Blockleled - Sat, 10 Feb 2018 17:06:24 EST ID:ZqNU3ikO No.165586 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1518300384982.jpg -(20395B / 19.92KB, 480x457) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
This thread reeks of concern trolling.

Positive racism isn't a thing, Hillary's platform wasn't her sex or her "turn", and TRUMP'S GONNA START WWIII is less hyperbolic when trump's stated foreign policy before the election was to literally invade Iraq to steal their oil.
>>
Phyllis Burrylork - Sat, 10 Feb 2018 17:13:15 EST ID:o4BwxZhq No.165589 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165584
If impeaching five fucking state court justices merely for ruling against a gerrymander isn't election rigging, I dunno what is. Add to that the shit they are pulling in Nevada and North Carolina, and yeah, the fucking GOP is now about staying in POWER by ANY MEANS NECESSARY.

This is a crisis when one half the nation is AOK with cheating to win elections.
>>
Priscilla Snodcocke - Sat, 10 Feb 2018 18:31:26 EST ID:KjdZJ104 No.165595 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165589

Again, Im starting to think you have reading comprehension issues. It says in OP's article that the 5 judges have NOT been removed as of now.

Stop fear mongering please with your BY ANY MEANS nonsense. Good lord dude. Its so sad.

Yeah GoP is wielding UNLIMITED POWER. So much they're fucking terrified of losing the house in 2018 and have less than 60 seats in the senate so dems can fuck with anything they put up.

Gimmie a break
>>
Nathaniel Nublingfoot - Sat, 10 Feb 2018 19:21:47 EST ID:o4BwxZhq No.165596 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165595
>GOP : We want to impeach anyone who disagrees with us.
>>Priscillla Snodcocke : It isn't fascism that they want this.
>>
Cedric Dartfoot - Sat, 10 Feb 2018 20:06:09 EST ID:KjdZJ104 No.165598 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165596

> the entire GOP is on the hook for the actions of a few members who ultimately will not achieve their goals.

> what is a straw man

They can want what they want. Fucked as it is, not the first time or last time itll happen. After reading that article it seems highly unlikely it will happen. You also have to consider the source, hardly unbiased.

but sure man, be convinced a civil war is coming and every single republican in America is a fascist hate monger who will murder civilians to stay in power BY ANY MEANS. Live in that fucked up world in your head. I tried. Good luck
>>
John Somblelad - Sat, 10 Feb 2018 22:18:59 EST ID:ZT3tdQVD No.165602 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1518319139730.jpg -(100336B / 97.98KB, 750x1100) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>165586

It doesn't matter what party it is, free speech is the most important part of our society. If we censor free speech we are no better than north korea.

As much as I hate stupid conservatives and stupid liberals, look at this board of free speech that allows us to discuss it. You want a circlejerk, then you go to plebbit.
>>
Eugene Sisslehall - Sat, 10 Feb 2018 23:09:42 EST ID:CQ4q9IQa No.165603 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165602
>le freeze peach may may
no one takes people like you seriously anymore because there seems to be such consistent hypocrisy on this from either side of the political spectrum, ie the fact that people (you're guilty here too) are so deeply invested in the false left/right us/them partisan dichotomy that they ignore blatant disregard for the "even if disagree with what you say" bit of the quote.

on the left we have the anti hate speech types, PC pushers, etc. On the right you get anti-Kapernick types, flag burning laws folks, those who take glee in peaceful protests being cracked down on, etc. Both will turn a blind eye to it to take joy in the petty partisan "fuck you"s they can get out of them, while simultaneously acting like their "side" is above that kind of BS.

be honest, you don't actually give a shit about freedom of speech when it's leftists' speech being stifled.
>>
Albert Guckleman - Sun, 11 Feb 2018 00:27:38 EST ID:lxWeAjfX No.165604 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165603

What projection. I think that their protests are fine, except idk the riots in Ferguson? I'll be happy when football "celebrations" are cracked down on too.

Here you are, making fun of the free speech amendment the foundation of the US. Because you're sensitive to some basement dwellers hanging around a statue?
>>
Lillian Brookway - Sun, 11 Feb 2018 11:03:29 EST ID:8c32w9KN No.165617 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165598
You act like this is an isolated incident and isn't undemocratic on its own...

>>165604
Free speech refers to protection from imprisonment by the government. Someone calling you an asshole for being an asshole is not violating your "free speech".
>>
Caroline Bledgepat - Sun, 11 Feb 2018 11:30:47 EST ID:0G4khkLx No.165618 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1518366647729.jpg -(56082B / 54.77KB, 804x828) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
America would be some much better off if the south and the rust belt realized New York and California were their betters and just let us run them.
>>
Alice Foshgold - Sun, 11 Feb 2018 11:40:12 EST ID:J+DByIsS No.165619 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165618
9/10
>>
Walter Clibbleville - Sun, 11 Feb 2018 13:05:09 EST ID:ojjwPRrO No.165623 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165604
how did i make fun of the free speech amendment? i'm making fun of people like you who claim free speech as such an important virtue amd yet do nothing to actually defend it when it's under attack (unless it' your "sides"'s freedom under attack).

also i don't think you understand the meaning of the word "projection". i would be "presumptuous" if i had accused you personally of being against the NFL protests (but i didn't, i accused the right in general). and when i said protests, you do realize i specified peaceful, yes? we can see right here you're digging in your partisan heels by deflecting, conflating, and generally eschewing rationality for the sake of defending "your side". i didn't even dig at you personally and you're all offended.

again, this is why people don't take you freeze peach brigadeers seriously. you don't actually care about free speech. you only claim to when it's morally convenient to in claiming victimhood, but will look the other way if it's your political opponents' being affecte or even endorse it. it's shallownas fuck and everyone sees through it.

notice not once did i actually decry free speech. but your immediate comeback was "you hate free speech!" now THAT'S projection.
>>
Cedric Menkinworth - Sun, 11 Feb 2018 13:17:19 EST ID:SqSZStxG No.165624 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165623
>le freeze peach may may
how did i make fun of the free speech amendment?
>freeze peach

Ok go ahead and kill free speech. There is no point in reasoning.
>>
Walter Clibbleville - Sun, 11 Feb 2018 14:15:41 EST ID:ojjwPRrO No.165627 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165624
making fun of you and the insincerity of your beliefs is not the same as decrying free speech. again, you're showing us you're incapable of separating your partisanship from your proclaimed ideals.

thanks for proving my above post right.
>>
Ebenezer Cluffingstire - Sun, 11 Feb 2018 14:40:32 EST ID:5ecZ8la4 No.165628 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165624
>sayig freeze peach means you hate free speech/the first amendment
LOL. It means your yelling "FREE SPEECH! MUH FIRST AMENDMENT!!" is just a moralistic facade. You'll claim to carry the banner but will quickly put it down when it becomes politically inconvenient, such as by equating police brutality employed at peaceful leftist protests to riot supression, i.e. exactly like you did above.

It's hollow virtue signalling and everyone sees it for what it is. You're not really a free speech crusader, just a freeze peach opportunist.
>>
Basil Debberspear - Sun, 11 Feb 2018 16:58:56 EST ID:w9cLgcCZ No.165630 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165586
This is not "concern trolling," it's just called having standards, you should try it one day.

There's nothing dissonant, elitist, or wrong about thinking Trump's an idiot (he's literally the bottom of the barrel for even Republicans) and being aware that SJWs are obnoxious, uneducated, and 90% of the time terrible humans. Both trump supporters and SJWs tend to get their opinions from their facebook feed.
>>
Polly Sondlefutch - Sun, 11 Feb 2018 19:18:15 EST ID:8c32w9KN No.165631 Ignore Report Quick Reply
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/02/11/pennsylvania-republicans-have-drawn-a-new-congressional-map-that-is-just-as-gerrymandered-as-the-old-one/

These Republicans can't help themselves. They aren't interested in what the American people want. They're only interested in serving themselves (and lobbyists' interests).

>From a partisan standpoint, in other words, the new map is almost exactly like the old one. Under the existing map, Democratic House candidates have routinely received roughly 50 percent of the statewide popular House vote but only five of the state's 18 House seats. The new map is unlikely to change that.
>>
Polly Turveyhall - Sun, 11 Feb 2018 19:29:06 EST ID:Nyq/4TP3 No.165632 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165630

but he tweeted he was like, really smart and like, basically a genius
>>
Polly Sondlefutch - Sun, 11 Feb 2018 19:44:10 EST ID:8c32w9KN No.165634 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165630
Trump is the President of the USA. The most powerful person in the Free World. SJW's are nobodies with no power except the ability to get under your skin.

Different standards apply...
>>
Hannah Wivingpadge - Sun, 11 Feb 2018 20:04:14 EST ID:ZqNU3ikO No.165635 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1518397454019.jpg -(224445B / 219.18KB, 2519x1320) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>165630
"Both sides are bad" doesn't work if your perception of one side comes entirely from what the opposition tells you they believe.

No one at all relevant to politics supports affirmative action because they think racism can be positive.
Affirmative action exists to prevent blatant, statistical racial biases.


There problems within the left, but it's not the bullshit strawmen like SJWs or reverse-racism or the claims the the left want to ban any speech they disagree with, because those don't exist in any quantity relevant to politics.
We don't have politicians running on ending the first amendment, legalizing discrimination against whites, or any of the other trolls ITT say the left needs to meet.


If they'd criticized politicians who oppose voting reform, campaign finance reform, single-payer healthcare, free-education, increased minimum wage, lower military spending, increased maternity/paternity benefits, workers rights, etc, they could argue that the left needs to have better standards, but instead they pick non-issues the right created to fuel outrage.
>>
Fanny Settingpidge - Sun, 11 Feb 2018 21:03:40 EST ID:ojjwPRrO No.165637 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165635
this. the kind of SJWs commonly showcased as being the problrm in fact really only make up a tiny fraction of liberals/the left/whatever you wanna call it, on the order of actual klansmen/neonazis/etc. you find on the right. but of course this won't be your perception if your get your cues on social dynamics from places like 4/pol/. i went to college in San Francisco and only ended up meeting a single sex-negative feminist ffs, and she was actually the most consrvatively dressed/normal looking of em (no dyed hair, nose piercings, etc.). it's an overblown boogeymen created by the collective imagination of internet echo chambers/social bubbles. of course this is also how internet leftists come to the conclusion that all republicans are rabid racists and such but i digress.

tl;dr stop taking all you social cues from the internet.
>>
Alice Gemblefare - Sun, 11 Feb 2018 21:50:35 EST ID:w9cLgcCZ No.165638 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165637
  1. I've never, once, been to the future /pol/ and I stopped reading your post after that bad sentence.
  2. I've known a lot of "sjw" types in real life. Lived, worked, hung out with them for long periods of time.
  3. You're jumping the gun. I'm not saying "all leftists are SJWs," but I am definitely saying looney SJWs shouldn't be free from all criticism.
>>
Eugene Nuttingsot - Sun, 11 Feb 2018 22:54:22 EST ID:o4BwxZhq No.165639 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165638
>I stopped reading your post after that bad sentence.

>>Continues on for two more points
>>
Henry Chibblemut - Sun, 11 Feb 2018 23:40:14 EST ID:tlilhxRg No.165640 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165638
>I've never, once, been to the future /pol/
Stop lying Alice, or we'll make you taste your own toothole.
>>
Alice Gemblefare - Mon, 12 Feb 2018 00:51:27 EST ID:w9cLgcCZ No.165642 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165640
I never started. SJWs are obnoxious children and responsible people should distance themselves from them.
>>
Reuben Clabblefuck - Mon, 12 Feb 2018 01:18:10 EST ID:JBJ7bpw9 No.165643 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165642
there's not that many SJWs though (they're actually rather rare), but there are a decent amount of alt-right psychos.

straight up Salem Witch Trial style scapegoat nonsense.
>>
Fanny Settingpidge - Mon, 12 Feb 2018 11:11:58 EST ID:ojjwPRrO No.165650 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165638
could you elaborate on your experiences on point 2? i've lived in liberal urban centers my whole life and have yet to meet one of these rabid feminazis of whatever. i'vr actually had more experience with the opposite end of the spectrum, such as bible waving loonies and attention seeking alt-right types.
>>
Polly Sondlefutch - Mon, 12 Feb 2018 12:25:35 EST ID:8c32w9KN No.165651 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165650
You'll find people who think fighting for equal protection under the law, i.e. actually enforcing the 14th amendment, makes one "an SJW". Hell, this thread is about gerrymandering. In what world does expecting equal representation deserve such dismissiveness? "yeah, Republicans continue to illegally pack and crack voting districts, but that's ok, because this random chick with blue hair on Tumblr said I made a microagression towards her." Totally the same thing, right? lol...

The moniker has lost all meaning, really, and people just use it to bring to mind the image of some undefined hypothetical boogeyman. Calling out a hypothetical "SJW" just a lazy way to push forward arguments with no substance.
>>
Alice Gemblefare - Mon, 12 Feb 2018 13:13:33 EST ID:w9cLgcCZ No.165652 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165650
As a musician and activist in my city I was around a lot of them for years. Now most of the activists I'm around are more educated and roll their eyes at SJW types. And actually all my gay/lesbian/black friends resent those types, too.

I remember one (my roommate) really wanted me to help her start her body-positive feminist organization, then found filling out paperwork too tedious and prefered to run her "organization" via a facebook page. She also had a lot of "benefit shows" that didn't do anything, she just spent the money on weed. Then she told me the house was broken into while I was gone, held a GoFundMe for a new laptop, then turned out she made up the story. That's just one of several dozen experiences with the lefty scene in my city before I realized "they're just attracted to this scene because it's popular, and they don't want to think."

Most of that type of people have a problem with accountability, and it reflects in their inability to get a job or pay bills on their own. Real working-class or open-minded people don't need to advertise their open-mindedness like crazy because the minorities and people they stick up for are already a part of their lives. And yeah I've had bad experiences with gun-nut Trump supporters too, most people have. Doesn't mean left-wing nutjobs are totally immune to criticism.

And the new radical-left endgame is to pretend loony SJWs just don't exist as seen in the hyperbolic posts here
>>165651
>>165643

Don't forget that these kids are the ones who alienated the moderate voters and got Trump elected.
>>
Doris Bimblebudge - Mon, 12 Feb 2018 13:26:08 EST ID:zN/wnRVh No.165653 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165652

>And the new radical-left endgame is to pretend loony SJWs just don't exist as seen in the hyperbolic posts here

They probably exist, but I can't remember ever meeting one. Maybe it's an American thing. All things political and cancerous stem from the US of A, apparently.

Meanwhile, while the alt-right endlessly criticize the SJW boogeyman, the rich get richer...
>>
Walter Pockdale - Mon, 12 Feb 2018 15:12:13 EST ID:ASNC5sSX No.165657 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165652
the people whi roll their eyes or your lgbt friends or whatever, do they specifically call out "SJW"s or "social justice warriors," or are you saying they hate those types of people, more generally?

big difference since you might just be rolling them all under a big umbrella term and are simply assuming based on that definition that they're "with yiu" on "SJWs." i don't think i've ever heard anyone use the term "SJW"/"social justice warrior" unironically IRL personally is why i ask.
>>
Polly Sondlefutch - Mon, 12 Feb 2018 15:20:35 EST ID:8c32w9KN No.165658 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165652
On the one hand, we have the corrupt Republican Party in PA continually abusing its power by gerrymandering districts to stay in power because they know their platform doesn't jive with the will of the people. This is undue influence over 20 electoral college votes. 18 representatives in the house. 253 members of the state's general assembly. That's power over 12.75 million Pennsylvanians, with the means to continue this abuse. On the other, we have your anecdote about one person who is powerless to accomplish anything anyway.

Tell us again about your standards and why we should care at all about these people you brand as "SJW's" as much as people with actual power and actual influence over our lives. No one is saying loony people don't exist on the left end of the political spectrum. I'm saying these people you're bitching about wield no power and don't matter in the political landscape. Has Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren ever introduced a bill related to "body-positive feminists"? No. These people have zero real influence over your life, especially in light of the very real issue of Republican gerrymandering, which, if you forgot, is the topic of this thread, so feel free to get back on topic whenever you want.

Also, it's not these people who got Trump elected. It's people who actually voted for Trump, and no, an undecided coal miner in MI didn't vote for Trump to spite your roommate, who he never met.
>>
Frederick Seddlecocke - Mon, 12 Feb 2018 16:12:16 EST ID:3gX8XuBT No.165659 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1518469936057.png -(458506B / 447.76KB, 637x594) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>165652
This: >>165658

I'd suggest taking your cancerous attempts at distracting people from the current genuine problems plaguing american politics back to /pol/, but in lieu of that cesspit's lack of existence, you're invited to instead get the fuck out.

>radical-left
>Don't forget that these kids are the ones who alienated the moderate voters and got Trump elected.

And a double fuck you for regurgitating fox news-esque propaganda.
>>
Angus Farrybury - Mon, 12 Feb 2018 17:30:46 EST ID:fIz9xdLH No.165660 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165652
>Don't forget that these kids are the ones who alienated the moderate voters and got Trump elected.

Trump was elected by a wave of populism and disenfranchisement within America as a whole. A great number of Trump's "supporters" only voted for him as a big middle finger to Washington's ineffectual centrist status quo. The only thing that alienated voters in the 2016 election was centrist, "moderate" horseshit like yours that Hillary and most of the Republican party espoused. If Bernie wouldn't have been cheated by the DNC, he would've won the whole election. The 2016 election proved that, thankfully, ineffectual moderates in both parties are a dying breed.
>>
Shit Suffingson - Mon, 12 Feb 2018 19:06:15 EST ID:w9cLgcCZ No.165661 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165659
>regurgitating fox news-esque propaganda.

That's not anyone's propaganda. That's actually why independents voted for trump, as per their own words.
So first it was
>You must be right-wing!
then
>Well you're just basing your experiences entirely on the internet
then
>They're a really small minority
then
>well the right has them too
then
>THEY DON'T EXIST
then
>Well...I don't like you and your facts!
Enjoy your alternative facts.
>>
Fucking Durryman - Mon, 12 Feb 2018 21:16:57 EST ID:DllvaG96 No.165663 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165661
>That's actually why independents voted for trump, as per their own words.
So first it was
????source????

voting for trump because you just hated hillary more is not the same as voting for trump because you hate "SJWs".

also, please define "SJW" for us. it's such a nebulous, dubious term.
>>
Angus Hellywell - Tue, 13 Feb 2018 09:24:22 EST ID:0G4khkLx No.165664 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1518531862987.png -(128014B / 125.01KB, 480x480) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>165661
Did independents vote for Trump? He got less votes than Romney and Mccain, and lost the popular vote by millions.

Pretty sure he won cause he ran as a class traitor, while on obvious lie was much more appealing to the rust belt than Hillary dabbing on Ellen.

Trump won because Hillary had one of the most incompetent strategies ever devised rooted in how she always campaigned, like she was entitled to certain demographics and didn't have to put in any effort for their vote.

Trump won because he was actually talking about working class wages (which he's done fuck all for), while the democratic plan was for us to all go back to school and learn to code.

Trump won cause he actually ran on an economic socialist platform, again an obvious lie, which was far more appealing to workers than Hillary courting endorsements from Bush Administration war criminals.

No one ran to the Trump campaign cause they were sick of "political correctness," cause no one actually ran to Trump, once again he got less votes than the last two republican who lost , he just had an opponent who had her head up her ass and offered nothing to women, minorities and the working class beyond playing Bey at her rallies.
>>
Priscilla Fanwell - Tue, 13 Feb 2018 11:43:13 EST ID:O7R8jdys No.165666 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165664
Trumps platform was so nebulous that people just projected their desires for this country onto Trump. He didn't even want to win. It was a "the producers" kind of situation. Be as ridiculous and off the wall as possible so you can't win. He wanted to lose in style. Because to Trump, losing was a victory. If anyone remembers, Trump put a lot of energy into the narrative that the election would be stolen from him. He stirred this notion into the pot of his base and was about ready to be served... until he won. If he hadn't won, he would have become a martyr against the system but lost because the system is just too unfair. This was going to be great for his money-making style, which is almost entirely about marketing his image. That's where most of his "fortune" comes from.

Now he just uses his power as president to make himself richer. He's too stupid to realize that he's digging himself deeper into Muellers rabbit hole. I can't wait for him to collapse.
>>
Hugh Fullerspear - Tue, 13 Feb 2018 13:54:55 EST ID:8c32w9KN No.165668 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165631
and Gov. Wolf officially rejects the new gerrymandered map: https://www.governor.pa.gov/governor-tom-wolf-rejects-partisan-gerrymandered-map/

According to that WAPO article, now the PA Supreme Court will instruct independent redistricting expert Nathaniel Persily of Stanford University to draw a new map from scratch.

It's ridiculous to think Republicans were calling for the impeachment of these judges, especially in light of the SCOTUS refusal to throw away PA supreme court's decision to redraw the districts. Justice Alito didn't even dignify them with a response, just a "no"! And PA Republicans, apparently disagreeing with the Republican Chief Justice, thought this was an impeachable offense? I'm amazed there's no repercussions for these actions, short of having to wait to get voted out due to fair districting.
>>
Rebecca Gesslemid - Tue, 13 Feb 2018 15:40:27 EST ID:tlilhxRg No.165669 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165661
You need to fuck off back to niggertits, you fucking the future immigrant.
>>
Jarvis Muckledare - Tue, 13 Feb 2018 17:57:45 EST ID:o4BwxZhq No.165670 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165666
>Trump put a lot of energy into the narrative that the election would be stolen from him.

Hell, he pushed that narrative AFTER he won.

Remember how he "really won the popular vote," but "Crooked Hillary," cheated in the blue states like CA somehow.
>>
Nell Handlewit - Wed, 14 Feb 2018 01:11:56 EST ID:O7R8jdys No.165682 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165670
hahaha, that's a good point. When he wasn't gloating like a vainglorious man-baby over his minuscule electoral victory of just 77k votes spread throughout 3 states, he found the time in the early morning to lie about the election results. Giving his loyal cultists the sense that he won over on the "deep state. He still employs this narrative especially in regards to fake news and the Muellers investgation.
>>
Phyllis Penkinfoot - Wed, 14 Feb 2018 11:44:24 EST ID:dH480vvX No.165692 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165666
>Trump put a lot of energy into the narrative that the election would be stolen from him
The past year and change has shown that this is not a one-sided tendency. Blaming electoral losses on conspiracy theories and the deep-state, refusing to accept a loss as legitimate, is now a bipartisan strategy.

The age of gracefully conceding and acknowledging the legitimacy of unfavorable election results is now definitively over. This is not a good sign for the whole "peaceful transition of power" thing going forward.
>>
Cedric Shakedock - Wed, 14 Feb 2018 12:27:45 EST ID:99dVvTOa No.165694 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165692
Do you have any examples or is this just baseless whataboutism?
>>
Walter Pendershit - Wed, 14 Feb 2018 12:51:46 EST ID:URfeGJQm No.165697 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1518630706201.jpg -(188437B / 184.02KB, 960x558) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>165694
>whataboutism
What is this, a verbal tic for you people?

All I'm pointing out is that his observation about this new tendency to just outright refuse to accept election results is perhaps even more important than even he let on and if so then it has worrying implications about the future state of the American political environment.

If you want to turn that into an excuse to get needlessly defensive about Mother then that's your own dumb prerogative.
>>
Cedric Shakedock - Wed, 14 Feb 2018 12:56:16 EST ID:99dVvTOa No.165699 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165697
Your deflections are telling. You can't just throw baseless claims sound here. You have to try harder than that.
>>
Nell Handlewit - Wed, 14 Feb 2018 13:11:51 EST ID:O7R8jdys No.165701 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165692
Can you give examples? As far as I can tell, Hillary conceded. Writing books about theories on how she lost is entirely different from flat out lying about election results. I think everyone here forgets how edge of our seats we were when Trumps lose was likely. Most of us were worried over how his base would react had he lost considering how much of a frenzy Trump put them in over the idea that the election would be stolen from them.

And certainly, pointing out the fact that Russia interfered, and plan on continuing that trend, with the election isn't the same as not acknowledging legitimacy of unfavorable election results. It's more a case of Trumps side not liking the fact that Trump could potentially be in power right now because of Russian interference. And the official story has been that Russia didn't flip votes, but there is new information coming out that it might actually have happened. I personally don't want that to be true. Because if it could be proven that votes were flipped enough to cause Trump a win, where he wouldn't have won otherwise, that would be a disaster for this country because his win would actually be illegitimate, and he would never abdicate peacefully. So I am hoping all of that's so minor as to not spark that sort of public uproar...

Now, altering peoples views through various means is a lot harder to pinpoint as being the cause for Trumps victory. That's a bit up in the air. Even though it is conceivable that those 77k votes may not have gone to Trump had Russia not helped him, even considering Hillary's poor campaign strategy in which she refused to rally in certain states because she thought those states were in the bag.

So in the end, acknowledging the realities of our system, like the Russia thing and gerrymandering thing and archaic electoral college thing and the uprising of authoritarian sentamentalities, isn't in the same category of not conceding a lose (Hillary and Bernie both conceded) and it's not the same as claiming millions of people voted illegally, starting an investigation that lead to nowhere, based on no factual evidence as to warrant an investigation in the first place.
>>
William Burryson - Wed, 14 Feb 2018 13:13:14 EST ID:gmmmNmch No.165702 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165699
>You can't just throw baseless claims sound here.
You think the idea that "both parties in a two-party system suddenly refusing to accept the legitimacy of election results probably isn't good for democracy" is a baseless claim? There's nothing to worry about when the fundamental basis on which a peaceful transistion of power is predicated is no longer trusted? Really?

Are you an accelerationist or something?
>>
Nell Handlewit - Wed, 14 Feb 2018 13:20:47 EST ID:O7R8jdys No.165703 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165701
And if half of the election realities were focused on right-wing voters, the right-wing would be calling for Hillarys head if she had won and if those points harmed the right.

Seeing as how Democratic voters having to deal with foreign interference in our democratic process, gerrymandering in which minority districts that vote Dem are marginalized in the drawing of districts and Dems as a whole, voter suppression that again focuses itself against minorities that vote dems and dems as a whole, the archaic electoral college system that is only strengthened through the largely GOP gerrymandering.... taking all of this into considering, Dems complain a lot less than they should be. Had half of these factored against GOP voters, there would be gun touting Republicans in the streets calling for our heads.
>>
Nell Handlewit - Wed, 14 Feb 2018 13:21:55 EST ID:O7R8jdys No.165704 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165702
>You think the idea that "both parties in a two-party system suddenly refusing to accept the legitimacy of election results probably isn't good for democracy"

That only works if it applies in practice, which you didn't prove it does.
>>
William Burryson - Wed, 14 Feb 2018 13:22:35 EST ID:gmmmNmch No.165705 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165701
>And certainly, pointing out the fact that Russia interfered, and plan on continuing that trend, with the election isn't the same as not acknowledging legitimacy of unfavorable election results.
Put your realpolitick hat on for a moment and be honest: if the Dems had won the election, would they and their media mouthpieces be making such a huge deal about how evil foreigners are manipulating our elections? Do you honestly think they would be running this story this hard and this often, or even at all, if they had won?

And if not... Why? Be honest.
>>
Nell Handlewit - Wed, 14 Feb 2018 13:39:34 EST ID:O7R8jdys No.165706 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165705
Weren't we just talking about how both parties question election interference?

> Do you honestly think they

Who's they? Media isn't a monolith singular entity.

And yes, I think the media would talk about election interference especially if they planned to try again in 2018. And if it wasn't talked about in the states, France would be talking about it because Putin tried to install an alt-right leader there.

Would it be as relevant had Hillary won? Personally, I don't think so because it wasn't Hillary that Russia favored and wanted to win. The fact that the guy Russia wanted to win did win does make it inherently more newsworthy because THAT guy is currently in power. The idea that a oligarchical dictatorship in which they kill political dissidents actually sipped campaign after Trump won is more concerning than had he lost.

Not only this, but Trumps cabinet and campaign are dropping like flies for their connection to Russian oligarchs who themselves are directly tied with Putin. I couldn't think of something more newsworthy than a foreign government actively getting their tentacles into our government.

That's my answer, which takes a lot more than this to answer. Your question is loaded, but to summarize:

The guy that Russian government wanted to win did win. The same government tried this/still trying this in European elections, and plan on doing this again in 2018. Not only this but there's an ongoing investigation in which there is a concerted effort to obstruct by Trumps presidency and the GOP (not as a whole). So with that, it's far more relevant with a Trump win than a Hillary win. But if I had to predict what would happen in an alternative timeline, it would still be talked about, but maybe not as much for obvious reasons (not for the reasons you think).
>>
Ian Nublingsore - Wed, 14 Feb 2018 13:45:42 EST ID:64BSD1Vt No.165707 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165701
So just for the record, O7, you are acknowledging that Trump's win was legitimate and the election was not in any way stolen?
>>
Nell Handlewit - Wed, 14 Feb 2018 13:48:53 EST ID:O7R8jdys No.165708 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165707
Until there is proof that it was stolen, then yes. I therefore "acknowledging that Trump's win was legitimate and the election was not in any way stolen"

That doesn't mean that I am not highly concerned over foreign interference by Russian oligarch mobsters.
>>
Ian Nublingsore - Wed, 14 Feb 2018 13:56:37 EST ID:64BSD1Vt No.165709 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165706
>And yes, I think the media would talk about election interference
You think that Dem pols and Dem media would spend the bulk of their time hyping up a story that casts doubt on their electoral victory and gives their opponents red meat for questioning the legitimacy of their mandate? After 8 years of birthirism and "Manchurian candidates" and "Sharia law in the White House" accusations, after the endless media circus that was Benghazi, you really they would just blithely go along and play into those doubts willingly? Because it was so fun for them last time?

Either you have a different conception of what "realpolitick" means or you're not being honest.
>>
Nell Handlewit - Wed, 14 Feb 2018 14:01:28 EST ID:O7R8jdys No.165710 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165709
> questioning the legitimacy of their mandate?

It wasn't Hillary that Putin wanted to win, so it wouldn't put anything into question. Trump would have faded out of the spotlight (who knows, maybe not). If anything, "Dem media" might point it out to showcase just how corrupt Trump was and just how glorious Hillary and her victory was.

Had the investigation gone as far had Hillary won? I don't know. Trump being in power may have made it more relevant to look into, especially considering the suspicious nature of Trump and his goons.
>>
Hannah Puddlehood - Wed, 14 Feb 2018 14:02:01 EST ID:aE62GWi5 No.165711 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165708
Then why should we be concerned if the end result is legitimate, non-stolen elections?
>>
Phoebe Droblingbid - Wed, 14 Feb 2018 14:13:29 EST ID:fBD9IKfq No.165712 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165710
>It wasn't Hillary that Putin wanted to win, so it wouldn't put anything into question.
So you're trusting that the Republicans wouldn't grab onto any possible thread of s conspiracy theory to try to deligitimize the Dem president, no matter how desperate or specious? This is the lesson that you learned after 8 years of Obama?

>Trump would have faded out of the spotlight (who knows, maybe not).
Bro, you just said, in this same thread, "Trump put a lot of energy into the narrative that the election would be stolen from him. He stirred this notion into the pot of his base and was about ready to be served... until he won. If he hadn't won, he would have become a martyr against the system".

Are you even trying to have an honest discussion in good faith or did you just legitimately forget what you wrote?
>>
Nell Handlewit - Wed, 14 Feb 2018 14:17:22 EST ID:O7R8jdys No.165713 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165711
What? What end result? Be specific.

At the risk of assuming what you mean:

Because of the nature of last election, and the facts coming in that Trump had help from a foreign government, in which he consistently shares secrets with and refuses to enforce sanctions against for their interference, we are naturally going to be suspicious.

Because of the nature of the type of interference that was committed, it's almost impossible to prove without a doubt how the election would have panned out had Russia didn't alter public reception of Trump and Hillary. How exactly could that be measured? What we know is that they did alter public perceptions because they favored Trump so he could potentially be their useful idiot.

Even if it was entirely legitimate, and we couldn't be certain of how things would have panned out, it doesn't mean we should just put our heads in the sand in regards to Trumps clear admiration and connections to Russian oligarchs, or his, and his peoples, suspicious, and many times illegal, activities.

If there comes evidence that does prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Russias interference did cause Trump to win, we'd be in an entirely different situation than just a pragmatic suspicion. We'd be in a crisis.

Beyond that, this all calls into question of Trumps legitimacy i regards his fitness and to his being a law abiding president. Is he obstructing justice? Is he breaking the emoluments clause? Is he fit to be president? Does he have early onset dementia? Can he run the country with a severe personality disorder? Is he laundering russian mob money? Is he conspiring against the US?

This is why in small part why the Russia story is important. It's not so much to call into question the legitimacy as president. It's everything that follows his victory.
>>
Nell Handlewit - Wed, 14 Feb 2018 14:24:10 EST ID:O7R8jdys No.165714 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165712
>So you're trusting that the Republicans wouldn't grab onto any possible thread of s conspiracy theory to try to deligitimize the Dem president, no matter how desperate or specious?

Facts don't matter to Republicans. They'll just make shit up when they have nothing to hold onto. They are doing this now with the Nunes memo. You are asking me to predict a lot here. Do I think CNN would call attention to it? Sure, maybe, but they might not push it as hard. Do I think PBS and independent media would talk about it? Washington Post? The Atlantic? Et al? Yes, it would be out there. It just wouldn't be as relevant, at least that's what I think, had Hillary won.


>Bro, you just said, in this same thread

Yes, I think it would have died down eventually. That was his intentions was to use his loss as a victory. But would he remain relevant long after? It's hard to say.

Would there have been a shitstorm right after he lost, and Trump would have used that to gain a cult following to get him to appear at events for big money? Get deals he may not have gotten before? Sure. Would he have been as relevant in the longterm? I don't really think so, but Trump is a guy that subsists on his image rather than his real estate.
>>
Nell Handlewit - Wed, 14 Feb 2018 14:30:43 EST ID:O7R8jdys No.165715 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165714
Also, you make it sound like Hillary holds a strong degree of clout of what the press will write. If we were purely talking about more partisan media, it's hard to say how hard they'd push it. If we are purely talking about journalism with a bit more integrity like Travis Smiley, Bill Moyer, Democracy Now, and whatever you can think of, then yes, I can see them talking about it.

But I'll say one last time, it's far less relevant with a Hillary victory.
>>
Nell Handlewit - Wed, 14 Feb 2018 14:35:58 EST ID:O7R8jdys No.165716 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Sorry for triple posting, I'll NB.

But, can we please go back to the original point you made before we digress further? You originally claimed that both parties have issue with conceding their loss. Give an example, that is substantive, that showcases this point.

Many on the right can't even accept their own victory, so they have to invent how millions of people voted illegally. They get some organizations to prove how easy it is to vote illegally, only to get caught and shown how difficult it is. They often an investigation based on nothing but conjecture, which lead to nowhere, and use this to create voter suppression laws.

What's the democratic equivalent of this other than blaming white hicks in the rust belt?
>>
Phoebe Droblingbid - Wed, 14 Feb 2018 14:36:40 EST ID:fBD9IKfq No.165717 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165713
>Even if it was entirely legitimate, and we couldn't be certain of how things would have panned out, it doesn't mean we should just put our heads in the sand in regards to Trumps clear admiration and connections to Russian oligarchs, or his, and his peoples, suspicious, and many times illegal, activities.
It is entirely possible to both be suspicious of Trump's admiration for corrupt Saudi and Israeli and American and Russian oligarchs AND to accept that the Dems 2016 loss was entirely of their doing that they shouldn't be allowed to deflect away from by exploiting your xenophobia.

You are, in fact, allowed to hold both thoughts in your head at the same time. Did you know that?

>Russia altered the reception of Hillary
You're not trying to gaslight us into thinking that people actually liked Hillary before this, are you?
>>
Nell Handlewit - Wed, 14 Feb 2018 14:54:09 EST ID:O7R8jdys No.165718 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165717

> xenophobia

I'm not taking this seriously. Get real.

And likewise, it's entirely possible to hold to the idea that Dems were inept and were in part responsible for their own loss and Russian interference on our democracy happened in which the evidence for it is overwhelming.

Did you know this?

>You're not trying to gaslight us into thinking that people actually liked Hillary before this, are you?

Nice trick, that's not what I am saying. If anyones gaslighting anyone, it's your post. Calling me a xenphobe for point out the realities of Russian government and their habit of interfering with democracys is a clear case of gaslighting. If you do it again, I can't in good faith communicate with you any longer.

Yes, people already hated Hillary, but it's possible to make it so that people that otherwise might have held their nose to vote to be swayed against it. It's not as black and white as people just not liking her.
>>
Hannah Pickford - Wed, 14 Feb 2018 15:06:11 EST ID:1CBVg9H1 No.165719 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165718
>and Russian interference on our democracy happened
The great thing about phrase is that it's deliberately worded to be so vague and inspecific as to he essentially meaningless.

Of course Russia "interfered" with the election.
And Saudi Arabia "interfered" with the election.
And Robert Mercer "interfered" with the election.
And I "interfered" with the election.
And you "interfered" with the election.
And a butterfly flapping its wings "interfered" with the election.

Only one of these things gives you a year-long hateboner, though.
>>
Nell Handlewit - Wed, 14 Feb 2018 15:17:58 EST ID:O7R8jdys No.165720 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165719
Did Saudi Arabia or Mercer successfully hack into the white house? Did you buy Facebook ads to specifically stir up the racist base? Did you personally generate bots to spread misinformation and fake media throughout the web? Did you try to, and possibly, hack into voter rolls?

Is Saudi Arabia making a concerted effort to create channels to share and spread state secrets with themselves?

Is the Trump cabinet and campaign team getting indicted for conspiring against the US government with the Saudis? Are they constantly hiding and lying about their meetings with Mercer? Are the intelligence agencies investigating butterflies or Russian interference?

Personally, I think you're missing out on history in the making. While Trumps team are dropping like flies for their connection to Russian oligarchs, and the potential of information coming out that Trump, in fact, is a useful idiot or puppet of Putin and this goes down in history, you guys will just keep focusing on how Hillary is a poopyhead... even though the DNC nor hillary are in power.

But yeah, butterfly effect and all that there, buster brown.
>>
Nell Handlewit - Wed, 14 Feb 2018 15:32:53 EST ID:O7R8jdys No.165721 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Anyway... yeah, gerrymandering is bad and needs to stop. PA redrew the districts and it still favors Republicans. And the less known problem, is that the 2020 census is coming up.
>>
Hannah Pickford - Wed, 14 Feb 2018 15:50:48 EST ID:1CBVg9H1 No.165722 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165720
>Did Saudi Arabia or Mercer successfully hack into the white house?
Do you have any proof that Russia did?

>Did you buy Facebook ads to specifically stir up the racist base? Did you personally generate bots to spread misinformation and fake media throughout the web?
Maybe I did. Are you going to demand sanctions be placed on me? Or am I not Slavic enough for that to get riled up about it?

>Did you try to, and possibly, hack into voter rolls?
Do you have any proof that Russia did?

>Is Saudi Arabia making a concerted effort to create channels to share and spread state secrets with themselves?
Probably, yeah. Why the fuck wouldn't they? Are you seriously under the impression that nobody on earth except Russia wants to get their hands on our juicy state secrets?

>Is the Trump cabinet and campaign team getting indicted for conspiring against the US government with the Saudis?
No, but they should be. Why do you think they should be held to a different standard than Russia? Are you trying to make my point for me?

>Are they constantly hiding and lying about their meetings with Mercer?
Probably, yeah. They lie about fucking everything. Are you seriously implying that Trump is truthful and forthcoming about everything in his life with Russia being the only exception?

>Are the intelligence agencies investigating butterflies or Russian interference?
Are intelligence agencies trustworthy, moral, unbiased, forthcoming, honest with no ulterior motives of their own?

Would you like to buy a bridge?
>>
Archie Sinderfuck - Wed, 14 Feb 2018 15:57:18 EST ID:8c32w9KN No.165723 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165721
In 2020, PA will still have D controlled state supreme court. It will also probably have a D governor.

Anyway, referring back to >>165668, Gov. Wolf did not accept that redrawn, gerrymandered map and a new map will be drawn up by independent redistricting expert Nathaniel Persily of Stanford University. Assuming it's fair, PA should also have a D controlled house. The Senate will take longer to fill out since they have longer terms, though.

However, the key here is really the Supreme Court and Governor. The State general assembly can draw whatever map they want, but it will play out the same way as this if it gerrymandered.
>>
Archie Sinderfuck - Wed, 14 Feb 2018 16:07:57 EST ID:8c32w9KN No.165724 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165721
It's funny that the republican state leadership committee has a program called REDMAP, and its stated goal is to gerrymander states, lol. They don't even hide it. You can donate money to help gerrymander your state for the Republicans!

https://rslc.gop/news/2015/07/16/rslc-launches-redmap-2020-sets-125-million-investment-goal/
>>
Wesley Fallerfutch - Wed, 14 Feb 2018 16:12:34 EST ID:u35xloTz No.165725 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1518642754338.png -(86953B / 84.92KB, 500x479) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>165716
>You originally claimed that both parties have issue with conceding their loss. Give an example, that is substantive, that showcases this point.
https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/18/politics/hillary-clinton-2016-trump/index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/26/opinions/recount-missed-opportunity-opinion-eisen/index.html
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/08/donald-trump-illegitimate-president-rebecca-solnit
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/douglas-anthony-cooper/russia-stole-the-presiden_b_13546074.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/31/opinion/manchurian-president-trump-russia.html
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/thomas-jefferson-street/articles/2018-01-02/keep-questioning-donald-trumps-legitimacy-due-to-russian-interference
http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-trailguide-updates-john-lewis-russia-election-1484341200-htmlstory.html
https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-case-for-impeaching-donald-trump-is-real-and-serious-heres-why
https://www.needtoimpeach.com/
https://www.amazon.com/CAR-MAGNET-Trump-Putin-Election/dp/B01MTZI5K7/ref=sr_1_24?s=automotive&ie=UTF8&qid=1518641673&sr=1-24&keywords=not+my+president+magnet
https://www.amazon.com/President-Trump-English-Russian-Putin/dp/B01MSJOM32
Plus about a million different tweets, posts, hashtags, etc. to similar effect

Look, O7, I know that this anti-Russia crusade is the most important thing in the world to you and that you take great pride in being a New Cold Warrior, but you can't honestly pretend that plenty of Dems didn't - and in some cases apparently still don't - have an issue with conceding the loss to Donny Tinyhands. Just comes across as dishonest.
>>
Wesley Fallerfutch - Wed, 14 Feb 2018 16:28:39 EST ID:u35xloTz No.165727 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165724
>They don't even hide it.
They don't need to.

That's the big difference between the parties. The Republicans have no moral issue with abusing every shady aspect of our political system for their own purposes no matter how bad it looks, how sketchy it is or how undemocratic the results end up being. They are loud and proud of their willingness to bend the rules, exploit loopholes and barrel deply-unpopular legislation through with minimum debate. They get shit done, and they don't care what you think about it.

Meanwhile, the Democrats pretend like they're at a fancy dinner party and heaven forbid if they offend the sensibilities of the people currently throwing food and cutlery at them, so they refuse to game the system with the shameless fervor that the Republicans do. So even when they do get into office all they offer is politeness and compromise incrementalism that ends up amounting to fuck-all.

If they Democrats really cared about winning versus pleasing their donors, they would nut up and play fast hard and dirty like the other side does. But they don't, so they don't. Sadly.
>>
Nell Handlewit - Wed, 14 Feb 2018 17:49:24 EST ID:O7R8jdys No.165732 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165723
Who knows how long that's going to take.

>>165724

Fuck yea, let's take our country back from the commies!

But really, I'm feeling optimistic that gerrymandering will be greatly lessened. The GOP has to do this to remain in power, but there has been a lot of traction against this style of strategy.
>>
Ernest Desslewune - Wed, 14 Feb 2018 17:53:21 EST ID:FdoSgyZ6 No.165734 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165732
>The GOP has to do this to remain in power, but there has been a lot of traction against this style of strategy.

It hasn't stopped republicans from essentially deciding 'The rules don't apply to us! we can cheat as much as we want!' and then trying to take action to defend their illegal and unscrupulous activities.
>>
Frederick Honeybury - Thu, 15 Feb 2018 19:22:24 EST ID:o4BwxZhq No.165852 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165734
True. The problem is, at some point, they will just start nullifying elections. It is the inevitable result of this slippery slope.
>>
Cedric Foddlestit - Thu, 15 Feb 2018 20:21:18 EST ID:KjdZJ104 No.165863 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165852
back at it again with this are ye? thought I scared you off. gtfo
>>
Frederick Honeybury - Thu, 15 Feb 2018 21:12:13 EST ID:o4BwxZhq No.165869 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165863
How is electoral nullification not at the bottom of this slope?
You can argue if we will get that far, but it is out there. Even Bush Jr played with the idea.
>>
Hedda Clibblelud - Fri, 16 Feb 2018 15:42:41 EST ID:8c32w9KN No.165907 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1518813761538.png -(284186B / 277.53KB, 522x348) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
PA gov. Wolf submitted his map for the state supreme court to review. Independent experts found this map exhibited no partisan skew.

More info here: https://www.governor.pa.gov/congressional-district-map-proposal/

There's even a pretty cool interactive map which breaks down the proposed disctricts and talks about how this area of land represents a community because of shared demographics, public transportation, etc.
>>
Fucking Blillerhall - Fri, 16 Feb 2018 19:48:01 EST ID:o4BwxZhq No.165928 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>165907
>Muh redmap.org!


Report Post
Reason
Note
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.