The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
Please vote in the Forum Structure Poll. Polling will close at 2PM EST on January 21, 2025.
Pounded Right in the [Presidential Election Thread]
Just listened to The Inquiry podcast (examines one question in the news each week) from the BBC World Service you chaps might be interested in - 'Would Donald Trump be a dangerous president?'
The programme comes to a somewhat unsurprising conclusion, Donald Trump would indeed be a dangerous president. The conclusion is that whilst he would most likely be an entirely lame duck president, his words alone would trigger instability in the world through worried allies and emboldened autocrats. Worth a listen, and the podcast in general is very interesting.
I don't really see how people keep coming to this conclusion. If Trump wins it will also likely mean that Republicans maintain control of the House and Senate, and would walk into the Oval Office with a vacancy already in the Supreme Court and the ability to confirm pretty much whoever they want.
They would effectively have control over all three branches of government, how this translates to Trump being a "lame duck" I do not comprehend.
The article is trying to be party-neutral. So not "Republicans are bad so Trump would be bad" (which looking at it from a party neutral point of view you can't say), but "Trump as a President- would he personally cause issues/corruption/the end of times or not?"
I happen to agree with you that Republicans in charge of all 3 branches of government is absolutely terrifying, but that's not what they're trying to measure here.
That's fine, I understand that they are trying to be neutral. But even trying to take an even handed approach you should still be able to see what the consequences of a Trump victory would be for the other branches. Even then he wouldn't be a lame duck. That's the conclusion that I have trouble with.
In the podcast, the presenter was speaking to Elaine Kamarck of the Brookings Institute, who was arguing that the Republicans in Congress would prevent the truly dangerous actions of Trump (pulling out of NAFTA and NATO etc.), he'd certainly still be a terrible president, just not a dangerous one, in as much as those can be exclusive.
Just listened to The Inquiry podcast (examines one question in the news each week) from the BBC World Service you chaps might be interested in - 'Would Donald Trump be a dangerous president?'
The programme comes to a somewhat unsurprising conclusion, Donald Trump would indeed be a dangerous president. The conclusion is that whilst he would most likely be an entirely lame duck president, his words alone would trigger instability in the world through worried allies and emboldened autocrats. Worth a listen, and the podcast in general is very interesting.
I don't really see how people keep coming to this conclusion. If Trump wins it will also likely mean that Republicans maintain control of the House and Senate, and would walk into the Oval Office with a vacancy already in the Supreme Court and the ability to confirm pretty much whoever they want.
They would effectively have control over all three branches of government, how this translates to Trump being a "lame duck" I do not comprehend.
The article is trying to be party-neutral. So not "Republicans are bad so Trump would be bad" (which looking at it from a party neutral point of view you can't say), but "Trump as a President- would he personally cause issues/corruption/the end of times or not?"
I happen to agree with you that Republicans in charge of all 3 branches of government is absolutely terrifying, but that's not what they're trying to measure here.
That's fine, I understand that they are trying to be neutral. But even trying to take an even handed approach you should still be able to see what the consequences of a Trump victory would be for the other branches. Even then he wouldn't be a lame duck. That's the conclusion that I have trouble with.
In the podcast, the presenter was speaking to Elaine Kamarck of the Brookings Institute, who was arguing that the Republicans in Congress would prevent the truly dangerous actions of Trump (pulling out of NAFTA and NATO etc.), he'd certainly still be a terrible president, just not a dangerous one, in as much as those can be exclusive.
I feel like that's splitting hairs to a degree that's real silly.
He'll just do what the legislature wants, which is uniformly disastrous, not actually push the button that begins armageddon: lame duck!
Just listened to The Inquiry podcast (examines one question in the news each week) from the BBC World Service you chaps might be interested in - 'Would Donald Trump be a dangerous president?'
The programme comes to a somewhat unsurprising conclusion, Donald Trump would indeed be a dangerous president. The conclusion is that whilst he would most likely be an entirely lame duck president, his words alone would trigger instability in the world through worried allies and emboldened autocrats. Worth a listen, and the podcast in general is very interesting.
I don't really see how people keep coming to this conclusion. If Trump wins it will also likely mean that Republicans maintain control of the House and Senate, and would walk into the Oval Office with a vacancy already in the Supreme Court and the ability to confirm pretty much whoever they want.
They would effectively have control over all three branches of government, how this translates to Trump being a "lame duck" I do not comprehend.
The article is trying to be party-neutral. So not "Republicans are bad so Trump would be bad" (which looking at it from a party neutral point of view you can't say), but "Trump as a President- would he personally cause issues/corruption/the end of times or not?"
I happen to agree with you that Republicans in charge of all 3 branches of government is absolutely terrifying, but that's not what they're trying to measure here.
That's fine, I understand that they are trying to be neutral. But even trying to take an even handed approach you should still be able to see what the consequences of a Trump victory would be for the other branches. Even then he wouldn't be a lame duck. That's the conclusion that I have trouble with.
In the podcast, the presenter was speaking to Elaine Kamarck of the Brookings Institute, who was arguing that the Republicans in Congress would prevent the truly dangerous actions of Trump (pulling out of NAFTA and NATO etc.), he'd certainly still be a terrible president, just not a dangerous one, in as much as those can be exclusive.
That's a bullshit belief. The house GOP is fucking crazy, the only thing keeping them in check is Obama, without him god knows what they'd do and believing they'd keep a president Trump in check is evident in zero of their actions.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Just listened to The Inquiry podcast (examines one question in the news each week) from the BBC World Service you chaps might be interested in - 'Would Donald Trump be a dangerous president?'
The programme comes to a somewhat unsurprising conclusion, Donald Trump would indeed be a dangerous president. The conclusion is that whilst he would most likely be an entirely lame duck president, his words alone would trigger instability in the world through worried allies and emboldened autocrats. Worth a listen, and the podcast in general is very interesting.
I don't really see how people keep coming to this conclusion. If Trump wins it will also likely mean that Republicans maintain control of the House and Senate, and would walk into the Oval Office with a vacancy already in the Supreme Court and the ability to confirm pretty much whoever they want.
They would effectively have control over all three branches of government, how this translates to Trump being a "lame duck" I do not comprehend.
The article is trying to be party-neutral. So not "Republicans are bad so Trump would be bad" (which looking at it from a party neutral point of view you can't say), but "Trump as a President- would he personally cause issues/corruption/the end of times or not?"
I happen to agree with you that Republicans in charge of all 3 branches of government is absolutely terrifying, but that's not what they're trying to measure here.
That's fine, I understand that they are trying to be neutral. But even trying to take an even handed approach you should still be able to see what the consequences of a Trump victory would be for the other branches. Even then he wouldn't be a lame duck. That's the conclusion that I have trouble with.
In the podcast, the presenter was speaking to Elaine Kamarck of the Brookings Institute, who was arguing that the Republicans in Congress would prevent the truly dangerous actions of Trump (pulling out of NAFTA and NATO etc.), he'd certainly still be a terrible president, just not a dangerous one, in as much as those can be exclusive.
Two points:
1) What Republicans in Congress are Elaine Kamarck watching?
2) Trump will sign all of their insane legislation that will make the entire country look like Kansas, at best.
The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
The pledge of allegiance always seems so weird to me.
I have never, ever, pledged allegiance to my country.
It simply never seemed like a thing i would, or should, need to do.
American Nationalism is a strange and very deeply ingrained thing. We have a different relationship to it than Europeans do.
It's just that, the idea that i would not be (conditionally) loyal to me country, and should re assure everyone that i am, seems weird.
I do get the usefulness of the pledge as indoctrination tool.
But when thought of in that way, it sounds like the people demanding the pledge lack the confidence in their country to be a sort of place that citizens would feel loyal to, and would ear the loyalty of its people.
I was listening to Jill Stein's press conference at the National Press Club, and good lord. I had never heard her speak and she is either extremely cynical, or kind of an idiot.
She's basically the sort of "well meaning" do-gooder that flatly refuses to even try to grasp principles of group dynamics and coalition building because it would clash with her model of how the world should be.
See also: Lessig, Laurence.
Is she really a true believer type? I mean, I avoid everything about her but when it comes to 3rd party candidates I'm more inclined to assume dumb grifter then principled moron.
Like, pledging support to the LGBT community and then days later donating to one of the nation's most ardent anti-gay bigots is pretty bad optics.
Not really, his followers will write it off or ignore it. It'll hurt him with everybody else, of course.
Yup. I've said it many times before, but his supporters seem largely composed of people who will self-edit anything he says to make him into the candidate they want him to be.
I hate how people try and claim either Trump won't be able to be a bad president because of some mythical GOP congressman who aren't currently doing shit to stop him, or that he's not actually being honest about the awful ideas he's floating. It's ridiculous "Well he sounds bad, but he can't be that bad, I mean who can be that bad?"
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I think its sad I have heard a lot of stuff on Stein in the media and she has god awful numbers and yet very little of Johnson and he dwarfs her in polls. So either people know stein is garbo or because Gary Johnson has such a generic name people just choose him instead of trump/clinton.
My guess has always been that this is mostly because there's just more overlap between libertarianism and third-party support. They both play on the same special-snowflake "everything is simple and we could easily fix all our problems if people would only listen to me" mentality, so Johnson gets a lot of cachet with the 'both sides are bad' crowd and the libertarians' supposed status as the 'middle path' lets them draw from both sides of the aisle because its a way of rebelling against your own party and looking nonpartisan without having to cross the aisle and legitimize your hated enemy by actually being nonpartisan.
In contrast the green party really only appeals to accelerationists on the far left, which is a much more niche group.
I was listening to Jill Stein's press conference at the National Press Club, and good lord. I had never heard her speak and she is either extremely cynical, or kind of an idiot.
She's basically the sort of "well meaning" do-gooder that flatly refuses to even try to grasp principles of group dynamics and coalition building because it would clash with her model of how the world should be.
See also: Lessig, Laurence.
Is she really a true believer type? I mean, I avoid everything about her but when it comes to 3rd party candidates I'm more inclined to assume dumb grifter then principled moron.
Read The Nib piece I linked above. She definitely falls on the "principled moron" side. (Dear god, "a magic trick called quanative easing"?)
The pledge of allegiance always seems so weird to me.
I have never, ever, pledged allegiance to my country.
It simply never seemed like a thing i would, or should, need to do.
American Nationalism is a strange and very deeply ingrained thing. We have a different relationship to it than Europeans do.
It's just that, the idea that i would not be (conditionally) loyal to me country, and should re assure everyone that i am, seems weird.
I do get the usefulness of the pledge as indoctrination tool.
But when thought of in that way, it sounds like the people demanding the pledge lack the confidence in their country to be a sort of place that citizens would feel loyal to, and would ear the loyalty of its people.
It's partially because the USA is a nation of immigrants. Citizens in a country like France have mostly been French for generations and have a very strong cultural identity. Immigrants to the USA are bringing in a lot of different cultural identities, so the pledge is useful in building up an American identity of "liberty and justice for all" that everybody can theoretically get on board with.
I hate how people try and claim either Trump won't be able to be a bad president because of some mythical GOP congressman who aren't currently doing shit to stop him, or that he's not actually being honest about the awful ideas he's floating. It's ridiculous "Well he sounds bad, but he can't be that bad, I mean who can be that bad?"
"I'm voting for Donald Trump because of <insert policy you like here>. Finally a candidate who's not a politician and means what he says!"
"What about <insert policy you don't like here>?"
"Oh he's just saying that, he doesn't actually mean it!"
Is totally a thing I see people say on an everyday basis.
The pledge of allegiance always seems so weird to me.
I have never, ever, pledged allegiance to my country.
It simply never seemed like a thing i would, or should, need to do.
American Nationalism is a strange and very deeply ingrained thing. We have a different relationship to it than Europeans do.
It's just that, the idea that i would not be (conditionally) loyal to me country, and should re assure everyone that i am, seems weird.
I do get the usefulness of the pledge as indoctrination tool.
But when thought of in that way, it sounds like the people demanding the pledge lack the confidence in their country to be a sort of place that citizens would feel loyal to, and would ear the loyalty of its people.
It's partially because the USA is a nation of immigrants. Citizens in a country like France have mostly been French for generations and have a very strong cultural identity. Immigrants to the USA are bringing in a lot of different cultural identities, so the pledge is useful in building up an American identity of "liberty and justice for all" that everybody can theoretically get on board with.
As someone from a nation of immigrants, don't kid yourself. This is almost entirely about American Nationalism, especially as it relates to anti-communism.
I hate how people try and claim either Trump won't be able to be a bad president because of some mythical GOP congressman who aren't currently doing shit to stop him, or that he's not actually being honest about the awful ideas he's floating. It's ridiculous "Well he sounds bad, but he can't be that bad, I mean who can be that bad?"
"I'm voting for Donald Trump because of <insert policy you like here>. Finally a candidate who's not a politician and means what he says!"
"What about <insert policy you don't like here>?"
"Oh he's just saying that, he doesn't actually mean it!"
Is totally a thing I see people say on an everyday basis.
And when he flips on <insert policy you like here>, they tell themselves that he's just saying that to win votes but will actually stick to his original promise.
On Monday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit refused to block a lower court decision invalidating large chunks of Wisconsin’s Republican-sponsored voting restrictions. The ruling effectively ensures that Wisconsin’s most burdensome new voting laws will not be in effect during the 2016 election, unless the Supreme Court intervenes—an extremely remote possibility. With this denial, the 7th Circuit joins a growing list of federal courts that are willing to question the impact of voting restrictions on minorities’ constitutionally protected right to vote.
The 7th Circuit’s refusal to stay the lower court’s ruling is especially remarkable in light of that decision’s broad holding. In his ruling, U.S. District Judge James D. Peterson barred Wisconsin from enforcing a significant rollback on early voting—especially on days favored by black voters—along with more stringent components of the voter ID provision. Peterson found that these measures placed an undue burden on citizens’ right to vote and violated the First, 14th, and 15th amendments, as well as the Voting Rights Act. He also found that a Wisconsin law that slashed hours for in-person absentee voting intentionally discriminated on the basis of race, a serious charge against the state Legislature. In one startling passage, Peterson slammed Republican legislators for their “preoccupation with mostly phantom election fraud,” an obsession that “leads to real incidents of disenfranchisement, which undermine rather than enhance confidence in elections, particularly in minority communities.”
The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
Just listened to The Inquiry podcast (examines one question in the news each week) from the BBC World Service you chaps might be interested in - 'Would Donald Trump be a dangerous president?'
The programme comes to a somewhat unsurprising conclusion, Donald Trump would indeed be a dangerous president. The conclusion is that whilst he would most likely be an entirely lame duck president, his words alone would trigger instability in the world through worried allies and emboldened autocrats. Worth a listen, and the podcast in general is very interesting.
I don't really see how people keep coming to this conclusion. If Trump wins it will also likely mean that Republicans maintain control of the House and Senate, and would walk into the Oval Office with a vacancy already in the Supreme Court and the ability to confirm pretty much whoever they want.
They would effectively have control over all three branches of government, how this translates to Trump being a "lame duck" I do not comprehend.
The article is trying to be party-neutral. So not "Republicans are bad so Trump would be bad" (which looking at it from a party neutral point of view you can't say), but "Trump as a President- would he personally cause issues/corruption/the end of times or not?"
I happen to agree with you that Republicans in charge of all 3 branches of government is absolutely terrifying, but that's not what they're trying to measure here.
That's fine, I understand that they are trying to be neutral. But even trying to take an even handed approach you should still be able to see what the consequences of a Trump victory would be for the other branches. Even then he wouldn't be a lame duck. That's the conclusion that I have trouble with.
In the podcast, the presenter was speaking to Elaine Kamarck of the Brookings Institute, who was arguing that the Republicans in Congress would prevent the truly dangerous actions of Trump (pulling out of NAFTA and NATO etc.), he'd certainly still be a terrible president, just not a dangerous one, in as much as those can be exclusive.
I'm surprised people still debate what would happen if Trump wins when the reaction to Brexit gave us all a preview.
As soon as the results hint that it's going Trump's way, the value of the dollar will plummet, wiping trillions off the world markets. As soon as it's confirmed Trump has won, every racist idiot in America will see the result as a validation of everything they believe, and will act accordingly. Hate crime will soar.
Put bluntly, if Trump wins America will start falling apart before your enemies get a chance to reach you.
I gotta say, I think that picture is pretty good. Pence looks good. His mom is adorable. Food shows signs of being eaten (at least by Mom; what is the deal with multiple pieces with just the skin bites by Mike?). Gotta wonder if Trump is mad about how much better Pence is at this.
It's no Kasich, but so few are.
+12
Orphanerivers of redthat run to seaRegistered Userregular
I gotta say, I think that picture is pretty good. Pence looks good. His mom is adorable. Food shows signs of being eaten (at least by Mom; what is the deal with multiple pieces with just the skin bites by Mike?). Gotta wonder if Trump is mad about how much better Pence is at this.
It's no Kasich, but so few are.
Kasich has not met a foodstuff or an anti-woman policy he didn't like.
Just listened to The Inquiry podcast (examines one question in the news each week) from the BBC World Service you chaps might be interested in - 'Would Donald Trump be a dangerous president?'
The programme comes to a somewhat unsurprising conclusion, Donald Trump would indeed be a dangerous president. The conclusion is that whilst he would most likely be an entirely lame duck president, his words alone would trigger instability in the world through worried allies and emboldened autocrats. Worth a listen, and the podcast in general is very interesting.
I don't really see how people keep coming to this conclusion. If Trump wins it will also likely mean that Republicans maintain control of the House and Senate, and would walk into the Oval Office with a vacancy already in the Supreme Court and the ability to confirm pretty much whoever they want.
They would effectively have control over all three branches of government, how this translates to Trump being a "lame duck" I do not comprehend.
The article is trying to be party-neutral. So not "Republicans are bad so Trump would be bad" (which looking at it from a party neutral point of view you can't say), but "Trump as a President- would he personally cause issues/corruption/the end of times or not?"
I happen to agree with you that Republicans in charge of all 3 branches of government is absolutely terrifying, but that's not what they're trying to measure here.
That's fine, I understand that they are trying to be neutral. But even trying to take an even handed approach you should still be able to see what the consequences of a Trump victory would be for the other branches. Even then he wouldn't be a lame duck. That's the conclusion that I have trouble with.
In the podcast, the presenter was speaking to Elaine Kamarck of the Brookings Institute, who was arguing that the Republicans in Congress would prevent the truly dangerous actions of Trump (pulling out of NAFTA and NATO etc.), he'd certainly still be a terrible president, just not a dangerous one, in as much as those can be exclusive.
I'm surprised people still debate what would happen if Trump wins when the reaction to Brexit gave us all a preview.
As soon as the results hint that it's going Trump's way, the value of the dollar will plummet, wiping trillions off the world markets. As soon as it's confirmed Trump has won, every racist idiot in America will see the result as a validation of everything they believe, and will act accordingly. Hate crime will soar.
Put bluntly, if Trump wins America will start falling apart before your enemies get a chance to reach you.
The fall of every empire starts from within. Why should America be any different?
I'm surprised people still debate what would happen if Trump wins when the reaction to Brexit gave us all a preview.
As soon as the results hint that it's going Trump's way, the value of the dollar will plummet, wiping trillions off the world markets. As soon as it's confirmed Trump has won, every racist idiot in America will see the result as a validation of everything they believe, and will act accordingly. Hate crime will soar.
Put bluntly, if Trump wins America will start falling apart before your enemies get a chance to reach you.
This.
The notion that Trump wouldn't be awful because the House/Senate would keep him in check is, to me, insane. He would presumably rubber stamp whatever 'bathroom bill/marriage bill/putting them gays and women and muslims and trans folks in their place bills' they could dream up, and I wouldn't be hopeful of Congress sticking their asses on the line to oppose any shit he tried pulling. If Trump wins the general, I have to imagine the Republicans down ticket would be doing fairly well also, at which point it seems like a clusterfuck all the way down.
Now compound that with instability as the uncertainty of what this goose will do shakes the markets/dollar, and a bunch of racist assholes take it as validation that their beliefs are indeed the correct ones/majority.
I wouldn't quite call it apocalyptic, but I think it would go pretty badly for a lot of people, and spectacularly badly for others. White/Male/Hetero/Cis/Wealthy/Christian (or at least a couple of the above)? Probably not a big deal. But I suspect minorities and women (whom are indeed disadvantaged in many ways, but pedantry, Google says they make up ~50.5% of the US population) would suffer disproportionally.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
+14
Metzger MeisterIt Gets Worsebefore it gets any better.Registered Userregular
CW: images of historical footage depicting anti-black violence
Posts
In the podcast, the presenter was speaking to Elaine Kamarck of the Brookings Institute, who was arguing that the Republicans in Congress would prevent the truly dangerous actions of Trump (pulling out of NAFTA and NATO etc.), he'd certainly still be a terrible president, just not a dangerous one, in as much as those can be exclusive.
I feel like that's splitting hairs to a degree that's real silly.
He'll just do what the legislature wants, which is uniformly disastrous, not actually push the button that begins armageddon: lame duck!
That's a bullshit belief. The house GOP is fucking crazy, the only thing keeping them in check is Obama, without him god knows what they'd do and believing they'd keep a president Trump in check is evident in zero of their actions.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Two points:
1) What Republicans in Congress are Elaine Kamarck watching?
2) Trump will sign all of their insane legislation that will make the entire country look like Kansas, at best.
I do get the usefulness of the pledge as indoctrination tool.
But when thought of in that way, it sounds like the people demanding the pledge lack the confidence in their country to be a sort of place that citizens would feel loyal to, and would ear the loyalty of its people.
Is she really a true believer type? I mean, I avoid everything about her but when it comes to 3rd party candidates I'm more inclined to assume dumb grifter then principled moron.
Yup. I've said it many times before, but his supporters seem largely composed of people who will self-edit anything he says to make him into the candidate they want him to be.
pleasepaypreacher.net
My guess has always been that this is mostly because there's just more overlap between libertarianism and third-party support. They both play on the same special-snowflake "everything is simple and we could easily fix all our problems if people would only listen to me" mentality, so Johnson gets a lot of cachet with the 'both sides are bad' crowd and the libertarians' supposed status as the 'middle path' lets them draw from both sides of the aisle because its a way of rebelling against your own party and looking nonpartisan without having to cross the aisle and legitimize your hated enemy by actually being nonpartisan.
In contrast the green party really only appeals to accelerationists on the far left, which is a much more niche group.
Read The Nib piece I linked above. She definitely falls on the "principled moron" side. (Dear god, "a magic trick called quanative easing"?)
It's partially because the USA is a nation of immigrants. Citizens in a country like France have mostly been French for generations and have a very strong cultural identity. Immigrants to the USA are bringing in a lot of different cultural identities, so the pledge is useful in building up an American identity of "liberty and justice for all" that everybody can theoretically get on board with.
"I'm voting for Donald Trump because of <insert policy you like here>. Finally a candidate who's not a politician and means what he says!"
"What about <insert policy you don't like here>?"
"Oh he's just saying that, he doesn't actually mean it!"
Is totally a thing I see people say on an everyday basis.
As someone from a nation of immigrants, don't kid yourself. This is almost entirely about American Nationalism, especially as it relates to anti-communism.
Teacher would say "Be ready"
And we answer - "Always ready".
Still I kinda don't get American nationalism.
And when he flips on <insert policy you like here>, they tell themselves that he's just saying that to win votes but will actually stick to his original promise.
Damn.
And they better.
(Looking at you, Breyer)
Switch - SW-7373-3669-3011
Fuck Joe Manchin
This is just sadness.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Still feel like Pence is at least 20% fucking with Donald.
From 2012:
Obama can't win.
That is an excellent answer.
This tweet makes no sense in the context of a running mate and would be very strange from a fanboy
pleasepaypreacher.net
Low energy. Sad!
Indeed. Also: Republican woman.
I'm surprised people still debate what would happen if Trump wins when the reaction to Brexit gave us all a preview.
As soon as the results hint that it's going Trump's way, the value of the dollar will plummet, wiping trillions off the world markets. As soon as it's confirmed Trump has won, every racist idiot in America will see the result as a validation of everything they believe, and will act accordingly. Hate crime will soar.
Put bluntly, if Trump wins America will start falling apart before your enemies get a chance to reach you.
Nah he's out of job soon he might need to see if his old room is set up
All Clinton needs to do is get a picture of her eating Popeye's next to someone's pickup truck to win all of the internet victory points.
h-has pence ever smiled before? i'm not sure he knows how to do it.
maybe being in such close proximity to trump for this long has made him forget how it goes.
It's no Kasich, but so few are.
at least he's eating it
It's just a little "just folks" snapshot to try to humanize the candidate. Not really that mysterious.
Kasich has not met a foodstuff or an anti-woman policy he didn't like.
The fall of every empire starts from within. Why should America be any different?
This.
The notion that Trump wouldn't be awful because the House/Senate would keep him in check is, to me, insane. He would presumably rubber stamp whatever 'bathroom bill/marriage bill/putting them gays and women and muslims and trans folks in their place bills' they could dream up, and I wouldn't be hopeful of Congress sticking their asses on the line to oppose any shit he tried pulling. If Trump wins the general, I have to imagine the Republicans down ticket would be doing fairly well also, at which point it seems like a clusterfuck all the way down.
Now compound that with instability as the uncertainty of what this goose will do shakes the markets/dollar, and a bunch of racist assholes take it as validation that their beliefs are indeed the correct ones/majority.
I wouldn't quite call it apocalyptic, but I think it would go pretty badly for a lot of people, and spectacularly badly for others. White/Male/Hetero/Cis/Wealthy/Christian (or at least a couple of the above)? Probably not a big deal. But I suspect minorities and women (whom are indeed disadvantaged in many ways, but pedantry, Google says they make up ~50.5% of the US population) would suffer disproportionally.
https://youtu.be/gFZ-1EojoFM
This would be an AMAZING campaign ad.