Jump to content

The Politics Thread


Toups

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 45.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Vee

    6819

  • DRW50

    5993

  • DramatistDreamer

    5521

  • Khan

    3465

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

  • Members

 

No, I'm sorry, but I refuse to pick battles with Trump.  In my mind, picking battles means compromising.  That's something that, quite frankly, we cannot afford to do with this dictator-in-waiting, on anything.

 

It isn't about Gorsuch and it isn't even about payback for Merrick Garland.  It's about not giving into Trump, win or lose, now or ever.  Because if the Democrats give in even once, they will never stop.

 

 

Okay.  But don't be surprised if we get to that point and the Democrats don't have anything, not even their precious filibuster, to stop him, because they've compromised away everything and basically handed the rest of the country over to fascism.  Don't be surprised if this opening gambit on Trump's part to dupe the Democrats (with a Scalia replacement, something that, on the surface, doesn't seem like a big deal) leads ultimately to the right AND the left lookin' gobsmacked as Trump and Bannon have duped them right into a totalitarian regime where they, and they alone, control everything and neither the Dems nor the GOP have a hand in anything.

 

(You know how much I love y'all...but I'm just gonna have to disagree here.)

 

Frankly, I say, take away the damn filibuster.  It's the difference between fighting with something to lose and fighting with nothing to lose.  Maybe it won't change anything in the end, but maybe it'll stop the Democrats from being cautious and willing to give Trump an inch on anything he does.  Who knows?  Without things like filibusters to fall back on, they might be forced to work a little harder in getting more voices on their side.  (It's a thought anyway.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

In theory I agree, but honestly at this point it doesn't matter if Democrats say no to everything - they aren't in power. They aren't going to win most fights. The confirmation battle over Betsy DeVos, where she is thisclose to being the first nominee rejected by a President's party in Congress since 1925, shows what happens when battles are picked IMO. To me Gorsuch isn't worth the distraction when so much worse is here and is coming. But that's just me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I guess I'm like one of those "radical left-wing extremists," lol.  

 

I don't want Congress to "work with" Trump and his goons, just as I didn't want to "wait and see" about what he'd do once in office or "give him a chance."  And I don't want to hold off on fighting him HERE because I think it'd be more to the left's advantage to fight him THERE.

 

I want the liberals and moderates to fight Trump HERE and THERE and everywhere else.  I want them all to block (or try to block) the crap out of everything he even THINKS of doing, regardless of whatever some think it'll cost them; and when and where they can't block, I want them to make it known to all who are paying attention that they couldn't block him AND WHY.

 

In short, I want the Democrats and everyone else on their side to say "No."  Every. Damn. Time.  No exceptions, no excuses.

 

Like I said before, this is not politics as usual.  This is war against the forces of fascism, and it's being fought in the WH, on Capitol Hill and across this country.  

 

The Democrats didn't bring the war, the GOP did.  But if it's war the GOP wanted back in 2008, it's war they should have now.  And if it all ends with the Democratic Party dead and American democracy gone and forgotten, then I, for one, want to know that the party I sided with once I DID choose a side fought the good fight.

Link to comment
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
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  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.




  • Recent Posts

    • Full statement from city of Glendale https://www.glendaleca.gov/Home/Components/News/News/9293/16
    • Has anyone ever totted up how many women on GL slept with both father and son(s)? Reva gets a lot of crap for it but she's far from the only one: Claire Beth Blake Olivia Dina Did I miss anyone?  Also, did Reva ever sleep with Phillip? They always had some "closeness" thing, but I don't know if they ever actually did the deed. If they did, then Reva's the clear winner, with TWO families covered, lol!  
    • I think Long was probably planning to have Claire suffer from Post Partum, but she left the writing staff shortly after Claire had Michelle so that element didn't get explored. And I always assumed that when Claire returned in the late 90s/early 00s.. that she was realizing that she messed up by not staying a part of Michelle's life and became resentful/bitter over her previous choices.  That was my theory.  
    • Jenn was a huge part of the success of Days back in the day, and that contribution shouldn't be dismissed.  With that said, I do think her and Jack's time on the show should remain as occasional visits/drop ins. When Missy returns to play Jenn, Jenn is back to being Jenn.   Jenn in her glory days was head strong, fiesty, and was a live wire.... and her scenes with Jack on Friday was classic Jenn with Jack being the voice of reason.   It was the foundation of their relationship back in the day.    
    • Claire was always tightly wound, I think what Long was going to do is to throw the three into this impossible situation with no bad guys, Mo, knowing how to take care of kids from growing up but unable to conceive and Claire, who didnt know how to take care of kids and was totally focused on her career, gets knocked up.  Ryder took Claire off the deep end as a convenient way to make story for characters he wasnt interested in (though Pratt blames McTavish) with little effort. It was later explained to be a brain tumor (though why was she a bitch again when she returned?) \ Claire did sleep with Rick, she was his first!
    • I'm sorry, truly I am, but this literally made me LOL. Tempting fate, much?

      Please register in order to view this content

    • Oh, I have very little doubt that Missy feels some way personally and privately.  Donna was just saying she actively spoke out against Days in public in reference to the gay storylines, which she did not. I don't have super strong feeling about Jen one way or another.  She was always a side character to me.  I still think Missy is Jen regardless of her stupid beliefs.
    • I hated the swap-over; Clayton Norcross, to me, was far superior in the role of Thorne than Jeff Trachta ever was. And the recast left me disliking Thorne when he was the superior son to me. As for Teri Ann Linn, I feel like she got the raw deal. Kristen was very clear as a forefronting character, especially in her rivalry with Stephanie, and it feels like she was dropped off for Felicia, and they never returned it. Not to mention the subpar recast with Tracy Melchior in 2001. Someone like Brenda Epperson (ex-Ashley, Y&R) would've been more suited for that role.
    • I just remember when Leo was marrying Craig (?), Greg Rikaart stated a line and made direct eye-contact with Melissa Reeves, and when the camera cut to her, she looked away. 

      Please register in order to view this content

       Rikaart had a mission that day, and he succeeded.
    • I need to go and find less.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy