Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 248: a Perfect impeachment hearing

(+) Yeah! (+)

Your perception gap: -1%

On average, Democrats have a perception gap of 19%
and Independents have a gap of 13% when assessing Republicans

lol I was also completely off on "Donald Trump is a flawed person". I had that at 90% because I would literally agree to that statement for every politician in the history of ever. What kind of lunatic doesn't see just about anyone as a "flawed" person. Not bad or evil or sinister, but just "flawed". That one absolutely blew my mind.
---

Suprak the Stud posted...

Your perception gap: -1%

On average, Democrats have a perception gap of 19%
and Independents have a gap of 13% when assessing Republicans

lol I was also completely off on "Donald Trump is a flawed person". I had that at 90% because I would literally agree to that statement for every politician in the history of ever. What kind of lunatic doesn't see just about anyone as a "flawed" person. Not bad or evil or sinister, but just "flawed". That one absolutely blew my mind.

What is this about?

This is extra tasty because of how hard Trump campaigned for this one only to fall short.

I don't know what JBE's popularity in the state was in comparison to Trump, but hey I'll take the win regardless. Still not tired of all this winning.
---

https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2019/11/opinions/fractured-states-perception-gap/

Sorry, Corrik posted this earlier in the topic and I was responding to it a little late.
---

I got a -9%. I vastly overestimated the number of people who thought muslims were good people, who thought climate change was a problem, and who thought Trump has flaws

I feel like these centrist shills put this up in an attempt to get me to see common ground with the other side and it hideously backfired.

Paratroopa1 posted...

I got a -9%. I vastly overestimated the number of people who thought muslims were good people, who thought climate change was a problem, and who thought Trump has flaws

I feel like these centrist shills put this up in an attempt to get me to see common ground with the other side and it hideously backfired.

I got a big negative on the Muslim one as well. That one is also tremendously disappointing, and the only reason I didn't mention it was because of how utterly shocking the Trump one was.

I still can't believe the number on that one. You don't think he has flaws?
---

He has only flaws!

---

Suprak the Stud posted...

I still can't believe the number on that one. You don't think he has flaws?

Would say it's probably virtue signalling to some point, and I don't mean that in the buzzword variant of the meaning; essentially just people pledging support by more strongly agreeing with something than they really do

On the other hand, like, for instance, the immigration question wasn't really written in a way that makes this possible; not everyone is in favor of immigration but more people are in favor of 'properly controlled' immigration. The question was loaded. Take that statement out and you get more no's (and you already got a crazy number of no's as it is).

Oh yeah, Trump had a surprise visit to Water Reed today and the White House is claiming that it was to start his annual physical early (hes not due for three months). But Im sure we can count on the long track record of truth-telling from Stephanie Grisham and Donald Trump!:

https://twitter.com/mollyjongfast/status/1195908263533064197?s=21

---

Suprak the Stud posted...

lol I was also completely off on "Donald Trump is a flawed person". I had that at 90% because I would literally agree to that statement for every politician in the history of ever. What kind of lunatic doesn't see just about anyone as a "flawed" person. Not bad or evil or sinister, but just "flawed". That one absolutely blew my mind.

Yeah, I don't understand that one. Everyone is flawed no matter how good they are.

---

Suprak the Stud posted...

I got a big negative on the Muslim one as well. That one is also tremendously disappointing, and the only reason I didn't mention it was because of how utterly shocking the Trump one was.

I still can't believe the number on that one. You don't think he has flaws?

To be fair, it isn't a regulated quiz. Anyone can take it as a republican or vice versa.

I agreed with every republican question. Only 2 weren't agreed with by a majority, the flaws and climate change one. I can't see thinking anyone doesn't have flaws, and while I don't readily believe climate change is a man made issue, I think it would be stupid not to observe and analyze and worry about it some.


---

Jakyl25 posted...

Also I kind of love SmartMuffin using Wikipedia as a source despite all the alt right whinging that its part of the Soros conspiracy to silence their views and will never expose real truth

reminds me of the time muffin claimed that a relationship between race and IQ existing is "totally uncontested by scientists." when i posted a wikipedia article citing a scientist who does, in fact, contest this, he went "WIKIPEDIA IS TRASH THEY'RE HORRIBLY BIASED."

but of course, wikipedia is totally valid as a source for his stupid tu quoque argument!
---

Ah, but see, they're biased against him.

How much stronger is any argument he makes when even Wikipedia can't hide the truth.
---

https://twitter.com/PabloAStefanoni/status/1195736334503202816

the coup-installed Bolivian government has given the military a blanket immunity for any abuses committed

b-b-b-but Morales is the authoritarian one!!

---

The new government being terrible doesnt justify Morales cheating. Maybe if he would have let someone else in his own party run instead of him Bolivia wouldnt be in this mess!

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

The new government being terrible doesnt justify Morales cheating. Maybe if he would have let someone else in his own party run instead of him Bolivia wouldnt be in this mess!

lmao what a godawful post

---

posts like that are why I think liberals are no better than the far-right

---

I mean are you pro-election rigging if its your guy (maybe conditional on the opposition being awful)? If Bernie committed election fraud to beat Trump, would you be cheering him on?

---

Nobody has verified the election-rigging.

It was a claimed inconsistency that didnt arise until after 85% of the vote was counted that when charted out on a graph was extremely consistent.

A Twitter post was posted in this topic showing the Center for Economic Policy and Research (I believe, it could be another group) proving they results in question were likely valid.

But instead of waiting for more info your response was almost literally people are suffering? Oh well! He shouldnt have tried to run again!

---

And for the record, Angela Merkel has been leading Germany for a year longer than Morales led Bolivia, was re-elected and is already expected to run again in 2021.

Strange how thats not a problem.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

And for the record, Angela Merkel has been leading Germany for a year longer than Morales led Bolivia, was re-elected and is already expected to run again in 2021.

Strange how thats not a problem.

Because the constitution of Germany specifically allows that and Merkel didn't agitate for changes to said constitution to keep herself in office.
---

oh god oh fuck a successful, well-liked President tried to change the constitution

---

Hey Tony what is your opinion of Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro?
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

oh god oh fuck a successful, well-liked President tried to change the constitution

His referendum lost and then he had the courts overturn it in a completely ridiculous opinion that running for president was a human right

---

LotM legitimately pisses me off sometimes.

---

Do you really not see how a person in power pulling every lever in sight to change the laws and keep themselves in power is not at least a little concerning?
---

Sure. Far less concerning than what is currently happening. Far less concerning when I consider what he did with that power. Less concerned after it was explained to me and never refuted that the election results made sense.

---

Not_an_Owl posted...

Do you really not see how a person in power pulling every lever in sight to change the laws and keep themselves in power is not at least a little concerning?

not really when it's apparently fine that merkel stays in power for a long time just because the rules in germany allow her to.

does this really come down to "well those are the rules in bolivia so tough shit for morales"? this seems like corrik-ish lawful neutral crap.
---

RE: Bolivia Coup
https://twitter.com/ryangrim/status/1196224557633409025
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

Not_an_Owl posted...

Do you really not see how a person in power pulling every lever in sight to change the laws and keep themselves in power is not at least a little concerning?

not really when it's apparently fine that merkel stays in power for a long time just because the rules in germany allow her to.

does this really come down to "well those are the rules in bolivia so tough shit for morales"? this seems like corrik-ish lawful neutral crap.

uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
---

wuuuuuuuut?
---

Guess if they didn't want democratically elected leaders arrested shouldn't have tried to help people.

---

there is absolutely a very important difference between "staying in power because the rules allow you to" and "changing the rules so that you can stay in power", especially when the latter is done through a court ruling that seems pretty sketchy

corrik's lawful stupidity is that if something is legal it's morally right. we all know that's wack, yet that doesn't mean that rules and norms are unimportant, which sounds like a strawman but definitely seems to be your implication
---

like who the fuck was arguing "morales is bad because he ruled for a long time"? that's the only context where your Merkel whataboutism makes sense

for the record this is now clearly a coup. morales still slipped and gave the opposition an opportunity, even if they would likely have tried to pull something regardless
---

I mean we can do coups for Supreme Court decisions? If so great let's turn back citizen's united.

I am a little concerned i grant you but it appears he went through the courts properly and also wasnt murdering people so hard not to sympathize

---

I mean I don't understand how "Morales' opponent is horrific" is meant to counter any of the arguments I'm actually making.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

I mean I don't understand how "Morales' opponent is horrific" is meant to counter any of the arguments I'm actually making.

He went through the courts, you have no proof anything actually untoward happened any more than any us court decision

People with knowledge have said the election results make sense in context.

So yeah

---

The point about the term limit change goes to his credibility; it's very believable that he would try to interfere with the election given his previous attempts to extend his power. As you say I don't have proof that he did rig the election, but I've seen no explanation for things like the vote updates halting and then giving him a huge boost after the update. I don't see how you can be extremely confident that he didn't cheat.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

but I've seen no explanation for things like the vote updates halting and then giving him a huge boost after the update

it takes time for rural districts (which favor him heavily) to report in
---

NFUN posted...

corrik's lawful stupidity is that if something is legal it's morally right. we all know that's wack, yet that doesn't mean that rules and norms are unimportant, which sounds like a strawman but definitely seems to be your implication

rules and norms should entirely be judged on a case-by-case basis. in this particular case, i happen to think that "a country leader can only lead a country for X amount of time" is a stupid-ass rule. i'm all for AOC running the US for 50 years, for instance. if morales wants to change this kind of rule in bolivia, that seems like a great thing to me.

NFUN posted...

like who the fuck was arguing "morales is bad because he ruled for a long time"? that's the only context where your Merkel whataboutism makes sense

not "morales is bad because he ruled for a long time" - "morales shouldn't rule any longer because those are the rules in bolivia."
---

NFUN posted...

it takes time for rural districts (which favor him heavily) to report in

Is a day long pause in updates typical in Bolivia between updating urban and rural votes? I'm open to being convinced and I can buy them being a bit slower, but a day pause seems very weird to me unless this is what usually happens.

---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

not "morales is bad because he ruled for a long time" - "morales shouldn't rule any longer because those are the rules in bolivia."

but those aren't the rules in germany so bringing up germany doesnt make sense regardless of how you feel about term limits
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

NFUN posted...

it takes time for rural districts (which favor him heavily) to report in

Is a day long pause in updates typical in Bolivia between updating urban and rural votes? I'm open to being convinced and I can buy them being a bit slower, but a day pause seems very weird to me unless this is what usually happens.

I don't have details, that's just the explanation I've seen
---

Changing the term limit rules is concerning but fine. In theory, in a fair election, you just vote the leader out if you don't like that. Other countries like Germany manage fine. The WAY more concerning is that maybe the election wasn't fair, and we honestly don't have enough evidence to say that despite the sketchiness surrounding it. It wasn't properly vetted.

And in either case, none of this justifies a coup to the more democratic solutions that were proposed - UN intervention, runoff elections, or a total redo. The escalation is the entire problem. This would be like if instead of impeaching Trump for corruption, Democrats seized control of the military, ran him and Pence out of the country, and elevated Nancy Pelosi to President so she could arrest the Republican Senate. Which, you know, go team or whatever but democracy is fucking dead at that point and God-Empress Pelosi is not ideal.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

The point about the term limit change goes to his credibility; it's very believable that he would try to interfere with the election given his previous attempts to extend his power. As you say I don't have proof that he did rig the election, but I've seen no explanation for things like the vote updates halting and then giving him a huge boost after the update. I don't see how you can be extremely confident that he didn't cheat.

Burden of proof

Also update string did explain. it was the quick count. Later votes come in rural and he is wildly popular there.

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Changing the term limit rules is concerning but fine.

Yeah, but it's not.

Changing the Status Quo or amending a Constitution is how governments are meant to work. Things aren't concerning just because they're new.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

"morales shouldn't rule any longer because those are the rules in bolivia."

This isn't even the argument either. It's "Morales shouldn't seek to change the rules in a way that serves to entrench himself in a position of power".

Note: If he was attempting to do this in a way that is "legitimate" in any sense I would have a lot more sympathy for his cause, but the fact that he first put this issue up to a public referendum and lost is pretty damning as I see it.

Note 2: The little I've read suggests that what he's been replaced with may in fact be worse, but that doesn't mean they can't both be terrible.
---

pyresword posted...

This isn't even the argument either. It's "Morales shouldn't seek to change the rules in a way that serves to entrench himself in a position of power".

Note: If he was attempting to do this in a way that is "legitimate" in any sense I would have a lot more sympathy for his cause, but the fact that he first put this issue up to a public referendum and lost is pretty damning as I see it.

Note 2: The little I've read suggests that what he's been replaced with may in fact be worse, but that doesn't mean they can't both be terrible.

You should try to avoid talking about things you don't understand. I say this because it is obvious as hell the two sides are nowhere comparable.

---

Educating me is always an option you know!
---

GildedFool posted...

Yeah, but it's not.

Changing the Status Quo or amending a Constitution is how governments are meant to work. Things aren't concerning just because they're new.

Well yeah, but my point was things can still be concerning in this model. Plenty of Supreme Court rulings are concerning, but still fair uses of power.

Would you seriously not have concerns at all if Donald Trump was the one to abolish term limits, even if you agree with that choice? I do agree, and I'd be concerned.

---