Psychic Gibbon

Pure Football
  • Content count

    49,496
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    105

Everything posted by Psychic Gibbon

  1. Makes sense that they'd free their clients.
  2. Even the Braves loss wasn't all that crushing. Sure, it sucked, but I wouldn't rank it among the soul scarring games I mentioned before or something like the infield fly game.
  3. I dunno. Did the Falcons and UGA **** up around the Leyritz HR or that 18 inning nightmare against the Astros?
  4. The new front office and coaching staff are going to have a great draft slot.
  5. That was one **** of an ad read segue lmao
  6. It's nice that their ineptitude won't ruin my mood ahead of Gemstones.
  7. Hope everyone is ready for rock bottom today.
  8. Basically no demographic writ large holds cultural and economic power. That's why they have to band together to achieve political and social clout. The leaders of those groups, on the other hand, are usually very close to power centers and thus do hold cultural and economic power. That is especially pronounced with evangelical leaders and their very tight alliance with GOP leadership. Subsequently, the party's priorities tend to favor the needs of the leaders instead of the rank and file. It's nice that they want those things. If they're prioritizing not covering the pill over giving tens of millions of their fellow Americans healthcare then that's on their souls, not mine.
  9. Speaking from personal experience within the Catholic Church and knowing electoral history, devout Catholics tend to be reliably Republican due to the reasons you mentioned after they were pried from the Democrats during the 80s thanks to Reagan's push to court and mobilize religious voters. I think something around 80% of Catholics who identify as white conservatives vote Republican, for example. The ones who are wooed by stuff like that Clinton quote are usually pro-choice Dems who just don't want to admit it due to social and religious pressure. Those kinds of arguments, however, give them an out when arguing for it. Obviously this doesn't cover everyone, since non-white Catholics tend to gravitate toward the Dems for non-religious reasons, but it covers a significant chunk of them. As for what evangelicals really want, it's pretty simple: Family values and what not was always virtue signaling. They never, ever actually cared about that stuff. They care about culture war stuff like gay marriage though it's mostly used as a stick to get the masses to the polls. The carrot, which is related to the culture war stuff, is maintenance of cultural and economic power (eg. tax breaks, draconian law and order). That's why the culture war stuff is an effective stick: The more they lose ground there the more they can whip up the base to vote so they can hold the line. This isn't to say that's unique to evangelicals, since you can see that within most voting blocs, but it's definitely not about Trump simply respecting them more.
  10. That argument would float if evangelicals weren't ruby red or if that was a recent development. Instead, when Republicans don't uphold their own version of political correctness they don't vote Democratic or stay at home. So, the whole respect thing is a sunk ship. Instead, it's about knowing the GOP is the best vehicle for change that they want and that they will have nowhere near the same amount of clout within the Democratic Party. It is thus far easier to twist the arms of imperfect GOP candidates and overlook stuff that never really mattered than it is to push the rock up the Democratic hill. Likewise, it is more convenient to use someone who has demonstrated that he's willing to brawl for those aims, even if they're nowhere close to ideal, than it is to get the perfect candidate who is viewed as a weakling.
  11. From what I know, Fox News viewers ******* hate Shepard Smith. Could be a pressure campaign from Barr or someone else to remove him but I'm more inclined to believe it's due to the viewers turning on him since he burst their bubble every so often.
  12. The very, very basic thing about politics is that it's all about power. In order to maintain power you need to scratch the back of those who give you that power. In democratic systems, the backs that need to be scratched are the voters and to do so you need to provide material benefits that address their needs. That, for example, is how when you ignore or feed into the problems you can lose the Midwest to a demagogue who blames scapegoats and how a Republican can win a Congressional race by poaching a subset of voters that were reliably Democratic. If you do not offer what the voters need then you'd have to be immensely inept or insane to expect them to vote for you.
  13. No. It's just a dumb argument. If you want people to vote for you then you need to offer them what they want.
  14. Your SCOTUS argument was an ultimatum, my dude.
  15. I understand that. However, that wasn't the argument put forward.
  16. It's honestly mind boggling. The two parties in the United States are forced to be permanent coalitions which would, in theory, make the Dems the left coalition. Instead you consistently have a center-right party that only moves on social issues when they poll well enough and on economic problems when a part of the system is about to collapse, and even then it's usually business friendly instead of consumer friendly. Their leaders also don't even bother trying to keep their coalition together, instead demanding their erstwhile coalition partners to vote for whatever candidate they put forward while actively courting suburban Republicans who will never be won over.
  17. I'm not relying on judges croaking. Also not voting for the lesser of two evils again. Offer something good and worth voting for. Otherwise, you can take your vote blue no matter who stuff and shove it. I don't owe the Dems anything.
  18. I voted for Hillary for the SCOTUS picks. Unless the candidate is willing to pack the court then it doesn't really make a difference now since they already have a majority. What does make a difference, however, are the new policies offered, the willingness to fight and identify enemies instead of triangulating, and the ability to mobilize your base to apply pressure on the powers that be that need to be influenced. Sanders offers that. Warren to a lesser extent (foreign policy to a significantly lesser extent). No one else really offers anything.