Riots breaking out all over US due to Trump winning

[Citizen T]

Problem was they didn't even want to do it in the first place. It got to the point there were too many cases being backlogged because Obama wasn't allowed to get justices to active positions needed to be filled and the workload got to the point there were more cases coming in than out. These cases would get so backlogged that timing started to become a concern (you only have so much time for a case until legal repercussions start or is thrown out because it took too long to get too).

Perhaps so, but in the modern era, it was the Democrats that started the whole opposing judges based on pure ideology. They are the reason "Bork" became a verb.

[stabetha]

Because it doesn't work by any modern civilized standards.

it works fine, your team lost, move on.

[Zoranon]

I pray that Trump getting elected is a wake up call for Democrats to realize this but I doubt it. Me and a guild mate tried to remember the last time Democrats had a successful midterm and the closest we got was 2006 midterms but that was more about reactions on Bush and Republicans being caught up in several scandals that drove down Republican turnout.

It will almost certainly not be the 2018 midterm. Dems will be defending 25 + 2 interdependent seats in Senate, Reps 8, in short the election will be more about whether Reps will succeed in getting 60 votes to break filibusters.

The most important election in the medium term is the 2020 state elections, since those will determine which party will get to gerrymander for the next 10 years.

[Darkeon]

So they didn't thought it was a good idea.
Cool story, bro.

Sorry, Jim - deflecting a question and giving a silly answer does not quality as a valid answer.
You can add losing this talk-show prize, to the fact that Hillary lost, to the reasons as to why you are salty.

[Cerilis]

That's like having a sprint at the Olympics and giving Gold to the guy that crossed the finish second.
Why? Because reasons.

Maybe "because he kept running the outer lane" would be more appropriate?

[Darkeon]

Please, tell us all why they introduced it. Make us laugh!

I won't be doing your googling for you. Sorry, Jim. You lost, don't be expecting any rewards now.

[Citizen T]

It's a shortening of "cuckold" that has gained popularity recently. It's like a new and perhaps more intense way of calling someone a bitch that is very popular among the most obnoxious Trump supporters and people who have generally terrible views on women, minorities, men who don't fit whatever their interpretation of masculinity is, people who don't agree with them, and so on and so forth. It's pretty much an all-purpose insult for anyone they disagree with about anything.

LOL.. And it just shows that person's lack of a rational response and limited vocabulary.

[Zoranon]

That's like having a sprint at the Olympics and giving Gold to the guy that crossed the finish second.
Why? Because reasons.

The correct sport analogy would be Tennis actually.

And there, they don't hand trophies to people who lose 6-7 6-0 6-7 on the basis that they won more games either.

[Glorious Leader]

LOL.. And it just shows that person's lack of a rational response and limited vocabulary.

The national review came out with an entire magazine dedicated against trump. In fact the cover literally said against trump. Internet trolls photoshopped it:



To be fair I thought this was hilarious at the time. No mention of George Will though.

[Stonecloak]

LOL.. And it just shows that person's lack of a rational response and limited vocabulary.

I agree it's a low thing to say, but they're on both sides. Reducing somebody's level of education just because they voted differently is just as bad.

[Cerilis]

The national review came out with an entire magazine dedicated against trump. In fact the cover literally said against trump. Internet trolls photoshopped it:



To be fair I thought this was hilarious at the time.

I guess it shows how some people deal with criticism.

Disclaimer: That doesnt necessarily mean people with that trait are only on one side.

[Citizen T]

The national review came out with an entire magazine dedicated against trump. In fact the cover literally said against trump. Internet trolls photoshopped it:



To be fair I thought this was hilarious at the time. No mention of George Will though.

While pretty immature, it is kinda funny.

[Glorious Leader]

I agree it's a low thing to say, but they're on both sides. Reducing somebody's level of education just because they voted differently is just as bad.

This is an increidble false equivelancy here. Its not that they voted.differently. Its that the perceived populism of the candidate they were voting for was incredible naieve and any remote understanding (which was duely provided) of politics and policy should have brought them to that conclusion. They were ignorant if they voted under the expectation that their choice would have led to a wall or better trade deals for labor or jabz jabz jabz back from chynaa or "draining the swamp".

[Citizen T]

This is an increidble false equivelancy here. Its not that they voted.differently. Its that the perceived populism of the candidate they were voting for was incredible naieve and any remote understanding (which was duely provided) of politics and policy should have brought them to that conclusion. They were ignorant if they voted under the expectation that their choice would have led to a wall or better trade deals for labor or jabz jabz jabz back from chynaa or "draining the swamp".

Or in other words they had a different opinion than you do? Then of course that's a good reason to denigrate their intelligence and judgement. /s

[Bullarkie]

I agree it's a low thing to say, but they're on both sides. Reducing somebody's level of education just because they voted differently is just as bad.

I feel like people have a really hard time putting emotion aside. One of my degree's is in math and I'm a big data guy. I love data because when you look at all of them numbers don't lie. I informed someone that Republican voters are less educated. This is a 100% true statement and I presented the data. It doesn't mean they're stupid, they're just less educated. People seemed to be so angry and insulted by the presentation of this data they largely ignored it and started throwing out insults.

Putting emotion aside and taking a non-biased view can really be an eye opening experience.

[Glorious Leader]

Or in other words they had a different opinion than you do? Then of course that's a good reason to denigrate their intelligence and judgement. /s

They had an opinion that was uninformed by the reality of the situation they were in DESPITE attempts to illuminate them. Trade deals are simple not going to be renegotiated to favor labor and even a curosry examination of the political and legal framework in place would have shown exactly that. The fact it was different isnt why they are being critized. The fact it was a poor decision given the stated goal of better trade deals for labor is. You can make this same case about virtually every single populist argument that Trump made including the wall. If you voted for trump because you thought he would build that wall then your judgment should be called into question.

[Masoner]

By riots you means Soros paying people to walk up and down the streets.

[Citizen T]

They had an opinion that was uninformed by the reality of the situation they were in DESPITE attempts to illuminate them. Trade deals are simple not going to be renegotiated to favor labor and even a curosry examination of the political and legal framework in place would have shown exactly that. The fact it was different isnt why they are being critized. The fact it was a poor decision given the stated goal of better trade deals for labor is.

The same things can be said of every single person who voted then. Do you really think Hillary would have delivered on anything she promised? She was bought and paid for by the Banks/Wall Street and foreign interests. The evidence of this was brought up time and again including leaks of Podesta's emails but her followers continued to believe she was looking out for their best interests.

By your logic the only winners were those that did not vote because they didn't fall for the lies of their candidate.

[Glorious Leader]

The same things can be said of every single person who voted then. Do you really think Hillary would have delivered on anything she promised? She was bought and paid for by the Banks/Wall Street and foreign interests. The evidence of this was brought up time and again including leaks of Podesta's emails but her followers continued to believe she was looking out for their best interests.

By your logic the only winners were those that did not vote because they didn't fall for the lies of their candidate.

Yes Hillary was a bad candidate. I never said she wasnt. Nobody won this election. Except for the powerful.and the elite which is fairly standard. We are fucked.

At the very least people.like Sanders and Warren could apply pressure to Hillary. Im quite curious who would do that to trump? Who will pressure Trump to get that wall built?

[Celista]

thats not the point now is it?

The point is that you shouldn't cherry pick incidents of bullying to reinforce a bias.