09.18.2020 06:38 PM

The shittiest year ever

42 Comments

  1. Gordie says:

    you are way too invested in the politics of a foreign country

    • Warren says:

      Maybe. I just find their politics more interesting and consequential.

    • Derek Pearce says:

      This particular foreign country has an outsized influence beyond its own borders. This is the icing on the 2020 shitcake.

      • Pedant says:

        And thank heavens for that! If one country has to be the world’s lone superpower, I’d certainly pick the USA over any of the other candidates.

        • Ronald O'Dowd says:

          Pedant,

          Agreed, even in 2020 under the James Buchanan of our time. RBG said it best: he’s a faker — and political con artist of the highest order — and low information voters eagerly slup up Trump’s Foolaid. That’s why Trump wins again with a con job even more monumental than in 2016.

          • Ronald O'Dowd says:

            The American capitalist political system in modern times is specifically designed to corrupt absolutely at the presidential and congressional levels: crony capitalism always rules the roost and wins. No further evidence is needed other than the revolving door from Goldman Sachs right into Treasury.

            Another example is the DrainTheSwampFaker who rightly condemned The Fed-Obama relationship designed to re-elect Obama. And surprise, surprise, today’s faker is doing exactly the same thing after twisting Powell’s arm into knots…

  2. Pedant says:

    Condolences to her family. But I always found it quite selfish of her to cling to a role of such national importance when it was obvious she was no longer able to do the job. Frankly there should be an age limit for such positions.

    • Ronald O'Dowd says:

      Pedant,

      I think she could still do the job. Unquestionably, the other giant has now died. The court will be of far lesser intellectual heft now that both Scalia and Bader Ginsburg have passed.

    • Max says:

      “obvious she was no longer able to do the job”?! Since when? Care to explain that?

    • William says:

      You call it selfish. I call it sacrifice. Anything to prevent the orange demon from getting another chance to stack the courts.

      • Pedant says:

        Why didn’t she simply retire when Obama was president? Was she gambling that Hillary would win? Was it ego? I find the idea of a “job for life”, and nobody can ask you to leave, very distateful.

        • Campbell says:

          The Senate was Republican controlled – would it have made a difference?

        • The Doctor says:

          I’m sypathetic to the Democrats in the US, but I agree with you that a mandatory retirement age, such as we have in Canada, would help in terms of predictability and probably reduce political shenanigans somewhat.

          There are a lot of similarities here to what happened with William O. Douglas, another liberal/progressive icon, who hung on desperately in the face of horrible health issues because he didn’t want Nixon to name his successor.

        • Ronald O'Dowd says:

          Pedant…she was repeatedly on the record that a Trump win would cement her in on the bench to prevent a Trump-appointed Court majority. Trump will try to get it before November. It’s up to Senate Democrats to give his nominee, likely a Latina justice, the Merrick Garland once over. Mitch needs to pay politically for last time, just like Democrats, who paid handsomely for blocking Bork.

        • Max says:

          Answer my question! Don’t deflect with a weak pivot.

          • Pedant says:

            I did respond but for some reason it seems Warren didn’t allow it (or maybe I neglected to click the Submit button). She has been very frail and in and out of hospital for years. For a role of such exceptional consequence, she is duty bound to pass the torch to an individual fit enough to do the job. And more generally speaking, I find “jobs for life” utterly nauseating, but that’s obviously not her fault. She didn’t write the rules.

  3. William says:

    Now the shit hits the fan.

  4. Ronald O'Dowd says:

    To no one’s surprise, Mitch is still as hypocritical as ever: absolutely no vote for Garland but a Guinness Book of World Record’s vote for Trump’s next nominee.

    • The Doctor says:

      Lindsey Graham is even worse: he’s clearly on tape from 2016 saying that he would not support a Republican nominee in these circumstances.

      That’s the thing with the current Republican Party: there really is no floor in terms of how low they’re willing to go.

  5. Ronald O'Dowd says:

    Warren,

    You think THIS is the shittiest year ever? Just wait until Trump gets in again. We ain’t seen nothing yet.

    • Yet Another Calgarian says:

      It is almost like the Democrats learned nothing from 2016 isn’t it?

      My impromptu poll of my Democrat friends in the US who don’t live and die by politics as their core identity over the last couple weeks is showing 10 percent who just arent going to vote, 5 percent voting for trump mostly due to the last few months of violence and another 10 percent who are going to see how they feel day of.

      Four years of catastrophization and radicalization has burned the moderates right out. Forget the shy Trump voter it will be the disgusted Democrat voter that does this election. Sure there is some self selection bias with me being their friends but 15% saying no is potentially a huge deal.

      And I’m sure thats not showing up in the polls any more than the shy Trump voters do. I would have said Biden was going to win with a narrow margin six months ago… now probably the other way around.

      Possibly even not narrowly if the left delivers on their promise of violence over RBG’s vacancy.

      • The Doctor says:

        What specifically is the left’s “promise of violence”? Please explain.

      • Ronald O'Dowd says:

        YAC,

        The American right has successfully and largely falsely pretzeled BLM and pigeon-holed them as ANTIFA or worse. THAT’S why Trump wins again. God help the USA.

        • Yet Another Calgarian says:

          If you are genuinely interested Ronald Rutgers University’s Miller Center for Community Protection and Resistance just put out a paper called:

          “NETWORK-ENABLED ANARCHY: How Militant Anarcho-Socialist Networks Use Social Media to Instigate Widespread Violence Against Political Opponents and Law Enforcement”

          its actually an interesting read on the subject. And it covers the Antifa crowd using the BLM crowd for cover.

          • Ronald O'Dowd says:

            YAC,

            Thanks. Short answer: those people doing that need to eventually meet Mr. Jail Cell, after due process, of course.

          • William says:

            You left out the part where the Miller Center voiced major concern about the boogaloo boys and other right wing violent groups.

          • William says:

            You also seem to forget that antifa was formed to oppose the rising tide of right wing white supremacist militias or fascists it you will. Also know as far right Conservatives. You know, the assholes who were infiltrating protests to cause damage and have protesters take the blame. And I mean protesters not the few whacko bottom feeders who loot stores.

          • Ronald O'Dowd says:

            The plot thickens. I thank God every day for not having the pleasure of being a US resident. It only gets worse with each passing day.

          • Yet Another Calgarian says:

            I did leave them out yes William because we were talking about BLM and Antifa being conflated and confused.

            On that note can you show me the arrest records of all those right wing protestors you and others claim are infiltrating the peaceful protestors? Or have they all gone back to Russia as per the Minnesota governor’s original claims?

            And no one here is claiming right wing militancy isn’t a threat. Your dismisal of the anarchist violence though is pretty much typical for the course. Rules for thee but not for me.

            @Ronald you are welcome and Mr. Jail Cell after due process would definitively be the majority consensus opinion in spite of claims otherwise.

          • William says:

            Calgary person. Are you seriously telling me you doubt that white supremicists infiltrated protests to incite rioting. You didn’t see video of it and read numerous eye witness accounts. Not to mention it’s totally believable If so, I dub thee a true believer.

      • Doug says:

        The Democratic campaign sure feels like 2016 2.0:
        -the far left of the party still captures too much media attention (ex. Green New Deal)
        -openly displaying compet for Trump supporters. That doesn’t play well with the swing vote
        -invoking legacy as reason to vote for candidate rather than because of the candidates advantages (ex. Continuity of Bill Clinton/Obama eras)
        -campaigning with celebrities. Nothing validates the elitist label more than being seen with a celebrity

        • Ronald O'Dowd says:

          Doug,

          The Democratic Party still hasn’t learned the most important political lesson in the United States, namely, that when you select your nominee on the basis of its your turn, you screw yourself royally in the states you need to win. That screams establishment status quo and people hate that.

          I would support Democrats in this cycle: Harris was my first choice, then Pete. I very reluctantly came around to Biden to be a good political soldier but frankly, I’ve never cared for the guy ever since he displayed arrogance and contempt during the VEEP presidential debate against Ryan.

          • Ronald O'Dowd says:

            …it’s…

          • The Doctor says:

            ROD I disagree with one thing you suggest there, i.e., that Biden was selected on the basis of “it’s his turn”. I agree that that dynamic was in play with Hillary, sadly. But I don’t think that was the basis on which most people voted for Biden in the Primaries. IMO (and I think this is widely supported by commentary) he was selected because he was seen as the prime centrist candidate who was most electable. There were legit concerns that Trump and his attack machine would eviscerate Liz Warren and Bernie as being too left wing and socialist, and Buttigeg was by contrast untested and unproven. I think it was more “safe bet” than “it’s his turn”. I would have loved it if a better viable candidate had come along (I really liked Steve Bullock personally) but none of the others had any legs.

  6. Daryl Gordon says:

    Republicans controlled both House and Senate for last 2 years of Obama second term. Holding majority in the Senate gives final say in SC nominations and selection.

    It’s not a contradiction or a surprise that Republicans would veto a liberal and support a conservative when they hold the Senate. In the same circumstances, Democrats would instantly do the same.

    I don’t recall the Republicans blocking Garland using the same shameless tactics that Democrats employed against Kavanaugh……..

  7. Daryl Gordon says:

    Republicans controlled both House and Senate for last 2 years of Obama second term. Holding majority in the Senate gives final say in SC nominations and selection.

    It’s not a contradiction or a surprise that Republicans would veto a liberal and support a conservative when they hold the Senate. In the same circumstances, Democrats would instantly do the same.

    I don’t recall the Republicans blocking Garland using the same shameless tactics that Democrats employed against Kavanaugh………….

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*