Redux Posted January 22, 2020 Share Posted January 22, 2020 3 minutes ago, knapplc said: HEY NOW He looked guilty to me when Gervais dropped that line at the Globes 1 minute ago, commando said: it could have been redux. just saying I'm honored you think I'm that powerful 1 minute ago, Nebfanatic said: That's what I'm saying. People use the whole Epstein didn't kill himself bit to implicate someone(usually the Clinton's) it could be alot of people Just least likely it was actually Epstein Link to comment
commando Posted January 22, 2020 Share Posted January 22, 2020 3 minutes ago, Redux said: 3 minutes ago, commando said: it could have been redux. just saying I'm honored you think I'm that powerful wait...you are not saying you are not guilty. or innocent of incentives to do so. Link to comment
Redux Posted January 22, 2020 Share Posted January 22, 2020 15 minutes ago, commando said: wait...you are not saying you are not guilty. or innocent of incentives to do so. I have the details of my alibi but you can't have them Link to comment
knapplc Posted January 22, 2020 Share Posted January 22, 2020 There is no way people can vote for Trump. How do you justify voting for this guy when this is the company he keeps? Link to comment
Danny Bateman Posted January 23, 2020 Share Posted January 23, 2020 @Redux Not to launch into this discussion again, but this is how I viewed your remarks earlier. For this analogy, let's refer to Trump as polonium tea. Democrats, and many on this board, realize the harmful effects of polonium tea and urge others not drink it. The pro-Trump people you described have decided polonium tea is the best thing ever and are awful nice to and support anyone willing to embrace another 4 years of polonium tea. If you asses the facts for yourself you will find ingesting polonium tea is very bad. Republicans, on the other hand, have a very specific set of "facts" that tells them the worry over polonium tea is a conspiracy and in fact polonium tea is in fact one of the healthiest beverages of all time. Should the first group stop telling people polonium tea is bad because some people don't like hearing it? I mean even if Republicans seems harmless and in fact much friendlier compared to the first group, in the end convincing people to drink polonium tea is still going to be harmful to their health. 3 Link to comment
Redux Posted January 23, 2020 Share Posted January 23, 2020 Okay, so maybe the best way to get people to drink your tea would be to not scream the ingredients and health benefits at them. Vegans would be more convincing if they weren't prone to having an attitude about their viewpoint. 1 Link to comment
Moiraine Posted January 23, 2020 Share Posted January 23, 2020 I received a link to this in an e-mail while reading these posts: ”Redux is fantastic” https://dev.to/davidkpiano/redux-is-half-of-a-pattern-1-2-1hd7?utm_source=Iterable&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=the_overflow_newsletter&utm_content=01-22-20 Link to comment
Redux Posted January 23, 2020 Share Posted January 23, 2020 24 minutes ago, Moiraine said: I received a link to this in an e-mail while reading these posts: ”Redux is fantastic” 1 Link to comment
Danny Bateman Posted January 23, 2020 Share Posted January 23, 2020 2 hours ago, Redux said: Okay, so maybe the best way to get people to drink your tea would be to not scream the ingredients and health benefits at them. Vegans would be more convincing if they weren't prone to having an attitude about their viewpoint. Who's screaming? I'm just having a conversation. I don't pay much mind to the fringe hardcores of either party because they're both generally equally as annoying. But they're not most people. Link to comment
knapplc Posted January 23, 2020 Share Posted January 23, 2020 That must have been awkward. Link to comment
Redux Posted January 23, 2020 Share Posted January 23, 2020 Quote And Gabbard, a member of Congress from Hawaii, has said that, as president, she would “absolutely” consider breaking up Twitter, too, along with other tech companies that she deems “monopolies” that are “censoring” critical voices. That Gabbard still asked Dorsey to fundraise for her shows how Democrats in 2020 are both talking tough about Silicon Valley’s power while also asking some of its billionaires and biggest celebrities to raise money and vouch for them. It’s another sign of the tightrope that almost all Democratic politicians have to walk these days. Facebook and YouTube would be my prime targets 1 Link to comment
knapplc Posted January 23, 2020 Share Posted January 23, 2020 Facebook, YouTube, Google, Twitter... all the top tech giants should be under review. The dangerous thing is how we do that, what power we give these companies to police the internet, and what consequences there would be for bad actors. 1 Link to comment
TGHusker Posted January 23, 2020 Author Share Posted January 23, 2020 Trump's reelection looks more like a long shot than a slam dunk https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/479078-trumps-reelection-looks-more-like-a-long-shot-than-a-slam-dunk Quote Although many financial analysts and political forecasters contend that President Donald Trump is likely to be reelected in November because incumbents typically win reelection when the economy is strong, Trump is not a typical incumbent. These are not typical times. At the outset, Trump will be the only impeached president to have run for reelection. Given that nearly 47 percent of the public believes he should be removed by the Senate, he seems to be starting his campaign from an unusually weak position. By way of comparison, it is helpful to recall that at the outset of President Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial in the Senate, only about one-third of Americans wanted Clinton removed from office. And while the Republican majority in the Senate may reject removing Trump from office, they cannot remove the still-metastasizing scandal that surrounds his actions with regard to Ukraine. The Senate can ignore, but it cannot remove, the damning facts and testimony from the public record, which show that Trump asked a foreign leader to investigate a potential 2020 rival and illegally withheld military assistance in an effort to gain leverage. Aside from Trump’s approval rating being the lowest of any president to run for reelection since Gerald Ford (who lost), according to my analysis of Gallup’s approval data, Trump’s third year net approval rating of -11.6 percent (mean approval minus mean disapproval) was nearly identical to Jimmy Carter’s net approval rating of -11.5 percent (he also lost). The only other president since Carter to have a negative net approval rating for his third year in office was Barack Obama — and Obama’s net approval rating was just -2.9, more than 8.5 percentage points higher than either Carter or Trump. Trump’s mean disapproval rating for his third year also was terrible: 53.9 percent. He is the only president to have a mean disapproval rating above 50 percent. The two presidents who were closest were Carter (48.9) and Obama (47.4). Making matters worse, political scientists Peter Enns and Jonathon Schuldt have suggested that Trump may be even less popular than these standard Gallup approval and disapproval numbers suggest. Link to comment
teachercd Posted January 23, 2020 Share Posted January 23, 2020 17 hours ago, knapplc said: Facebook, YouTube, Google, Twitter... all the top tech giants should be under review. The dangerous thing is how we do that, what power we give these companies to police the internet, and what consequences there would be for bad actors. Well, they earn a Razzie... Link to comment
knapplc Posted January 23, 2020 Share Posted January 23, 2020 29 minutes ago, TGHusker said: Trump's reelection looks more like a long shot than a slam dunk So, roughly where it was at this time in about 2016. Right? When did Trump start to lead the polls? When did America basically lose its mind? 1 Link to comment
Recommended Posts